Switch Theme:

Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Do you agree?
I agree completely
I agree somewhat
I completly disagree

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Manchu wrote:
BlaxicanX wrote:
The models look so terrible though.
Lelith's alright, surely.


*looks up the model since it's been forever since I followed 40k*

The quality of the sculpt seems solid, but I'm not sure who they're trying to target with that look. Her body type really isn't traditionally feminine enough for most of the folks who I think would appreciate that outfit. Most of the folks who'd appreciate that they've got sort of a muscular lady there probably would kind of roll their eyes at the outfit. I mean it feels like you'd have to be someone who can both simultaneously enjoy having sort of muscular lady and likes the skimpy-outfitted BDSM elf thing they've got going on. I'm not sure how big that particular segment of the community is.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/02/28 21:32:17


 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion





 Melissia wrote:
I say the same thing about the male ones, too.

The vehicles are the only thing that don't suck to paint


It is clear that you have many more issues with WH40k than just it's lackluster selection of female models. And given your arguments I don't think that having any more females models, just for the sake of having them, will improve your experience at all. If the models still suck to paint (in your opinion) but half of those models are female, how does that resolve the problem?

The representation of females in the lore is not in direct proportion to the number of female models available for purchase.

Another poster mentioned previously that a number of conventions are noticing an increase in attendance by females. This will serve as a good analogy. Most conventions (I am assuming he meant things like comic-con and not work related business conventions) are already catering to a VERY small minority of the human population. If 1% of people show up at a typical convention, and 1% of those people are female. That is an extremely small number. If that number suddenly rose to show that 30% of those attendants were female, it would still only be 30% of 1% of the worlds population.

Extrapolate that into the world of 40k. The Imperium of Man encompasses billions of worlds, and countless trillions of human beings. Of that, the sisters of battle, even if their number were a million strong (which it is not) they would still represent only a fraction of a percent of the Imperium at large. The same is true of the Inquisition, or the Assassin Houses. How is that showing any kind of equality?

It's been said more than once in this thread Cadia has a birthrate that is synonymous with it's recruitment rate. While that's a fine quote from the codex, it doesn't make any further leaps in logic to assume that literally every person so enlisted becomes a Guardsman. There are countless offices within the Imperial Guard and its interconnected militant branches that must be filled. This includes everything from logistics and communication to propaganda, uniform production, food distribution, construction, repair, and navigation. And countless more besides. Many of those station are either gender-neutral, or would be better filled by a female than a male. Even if a equal number of females are conscripted as males, that does NOT imply that they are given the same role once conscripted.

Billions of Guardsman die every day in the service of the Emperer, Billions died yesterday and billions more will die tomorrow. That kind of lust for death requires a heavy influx of new humans to fill the gap. As strange as it is when compared to our reality, the most probable role of women in 40k is giving birth... whether by choice or because they were enlisted to due so. The survival of humanity would depend on it.

So... I suppose you're right. We should make some models of that. have a few models of women in Sanctions Birthing regiments or some such. I mean, it fits with the lore right?
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Chongara wrote:
I'm not sure how big that particular segment of the community is.
It seems to be exactly as larger or slightly larger than the segment that like Dark Eldar.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/28 21:42:59


   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






Chongara wrote:

The quality of the sculpt seems solid, but I'm not sure who they're trying to target with that look. Her body type really isn't traditionally feminine enough for most of the folks who I think would appreciate that outfit. Most of the folks who'd appreciate that they've got sort of a muscular lady there probably would kind of roll their eyes at the outfit. I mean it feels like you'd have to be someone who can both simultaneously enjoy having sort of muscular lady and likes the skimpy-outfitted BDSM elf thing they've got going on. I'm not sure how big that particular segment of the community is.


C'mon, everyone loves muscular BDSM ladies!

Biggest problem with Lelith is the kinda gaunt and angular face like all GW elves have. I don't think that this is particularly great look for a woman. Oddly, the human inquisitor has same type of a face.

   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Well sh'es not a woman. She's a female space elf.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Manchu wrote:
Chongara wrote:
I'm not sure how big that particular segment of the community is.
It seems to be exactly as larger or slightly larger than the segment that like Dark Eldar.


I don't know, looking over the other Dark Eldar models the vast majority don't seem to be ladies with cheese-grater abs. I'm seeing a lot of models with ornate armor, some-fully clad dudes with whips & armor, skeleton guys and some kind of mutant cyborg thing, a unit of shirtless muscle-men. I mean I'm looking over the range and I'm not seeing anything else quite like her.

The generic succubus maybe a bit, but her even outfit is a bit closer to "Reasonable" and as result she's not really showing off that less-than-volupous physique as much. Even the witches seem to be either mostly armoured or not quite at the "Muscle March" level of the that character model.

Maybe I'm missing something but I could easily see people outside the narrow segment of the population that would enjoy her, enjoying the Dark Eldar range. It's not *my* thing but there certainly seems to be more to them than "Extremely Muscular Women in Skimpy Outfits"

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/02/28 21:50:50


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter




Seattle


It's been said more than once in this thread Cadia has a birthrate that is synonymous with it's recruitment rate. While that's a fine quote from the codex, it doesn't make any further leaps in logic to assume that literally every person so enlisted becomes a Guardsman. There are countless offices within the Imperial Guard and its interconnected militant branches that must be filled. This includes everything from logistics and communication to propaganda, uniform production, food distribution, construction, repair, and navigation. And countless more besides. Many of those station are either gender-neutral, or would be better filled by a female than a male. Even if a equal number of females are conscripted as males, that does NOT imply that they are given the same role once conscripted.


That's the Departmento Munitorum, not the Imperial Guard. The DM oversees the Guard, but does not draw its bureaucrats from the ranks of the Guard. These people are Administratum clerks, and are drawn from the Administratum's own worlds, the Schola Progeniums, mid-Hive families, the lesser children of nobles, and the other sources of desk-drones that one finds in such societies.

It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Chongara wrote:
I mean I'm looking over the range and I'm not seeing anything else quite like her.
I dunno, the female Wyches are pretty buff.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/28 21:54:19


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Manchu wrote:
Chongara wrote:
I mean I'm looking over the range and I'm not seeing anything else quite like her.
I dunno, the female Wyches are pretty buff.


Yeah they are. I'd be willing to concede they're roughly in the same category as her, even if not as extreme. Still I don't see "Muscular Women in Skimpy Outfits" as defining the look of the faction as whole. They've got a of models that don't have anything to with that (the majority in fact!). My only point was I don't think the number of people who would enjoy that model for those design elements == the number of people who like Dark Eldar. I'll certainly give them credit for doing something a bit different. There are women there, and they aren't strictly pin-up models or something close to it. That's worth something in my book, not much but it's something. That's more than I can say about some ranges I've seen.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/28 22:01:47


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Chongara wrote:
I'd be willing to concede they're roughly in the same category as her, even if not as extreme.
Which makes good sense, considering Lelith is the most extreme of the Wyches.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote:
That's worth something, not much but it's something.
I think you're selling the DE abit short. I mean, it's sci-fantasy. No one is wearing anything sensible and I suspect models dressed for respectable, good paying jobs that young women should aspire to hold are not really what you want anyway.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/28 22:02:16


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Manchu wrote:
I think you're selling the DE abit short. I mean, it's sci-fantasy. No one is wearing anything sensible and I suspect models dressed for respectable, good paying jobs that young women should aspire to hold are not really what you want anyway.


I may be selling them a bit short, I'll admit to having become particularly picky and particularly grumpy about female character design in nerd media. I think there are maybe 3 models unit I'd be confident giving a passing mark to (Second row middle model, bottom row two rightmost models), at least in terms of bucking the stupider design trends. Assuming they're not wearing heels I failed to spot.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/02/28 22:13:31


 
   
Made in us
Shrieking Traitor Sentinel Pilot




New Bedford, MA

 Melissia wrote:
BlaxicanX wrote:
Why do you guyseven want female models in the game?
Because it's more representative of the lore, and the lore is the only reaosn the game doesn't suck ass.

And as you noted, there's a lot of problems with it too. I'm really sick of hearing "the reason there's no female marines is gene-seed, blblabla"
No that's the EXCUSE, as to why there are no female space marines. The follow-up question "Why did they write that" would reveal the real reason. (I can't answer that as I wasn't there, but I could venture some very pointed guesses.)

Why do I want normal female models so bad? I've spent the last 3 months building two armies (Guard and Slaanesh) and because I didn't want them to look like a sausage fest or a playboy shoot I had to scratch build half my models. (Amusingly enough, I'll have to do the same for my daemonettes, because the only GW models who SHOULD look sexual look like odd lizards instead, but I digress.)

I notice my posts seem to bring threads to a screeching halt. Considering the content of most threads on dakka, you're welcome. 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Chongara wrote:
Assuming they're not wearing heels I failed to spot.
Lelith is barefoot: points added, points lost, or neither?

   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion





 Boggy Man wrote:
 Melissia wrote:
BlaxicanX wrote:
Why do you guyseven want female models in the game?
Because it's more representative of the lore, and the lore is the only reaosn the game doesn't suck ass.

And as you noted, there's a lot of problems with it too. I'm really sick of hearing "the reason there's no female marines is gene-seed, blblabla"
No that's the EXCUSE, as to why there are no female space marines. The follow-up question "Why did they write that" would reveal the real reason. (I can't answer that as I wasn't there, but I could venture some very pointed guesses.)

Why do I want normal female models so bad? I've spent the last 3 months building two armies (Guard and Slaanesh) and because I didn't want them to look like a sausage fest or a playboy shoot I had to scratch build half my models. (Amusingly enough, I'll have to do the same for my daemonettes, because the only GW models who SHOULD look sexual look like odd lizards instead, but I digress.)


http://www.ragingheroes.com/collections/complete-collection/products/preying-mantis

These models are very well sculpted and look much better than the deamonettes that GW currently has in their lineup. I doubt they are marketed towards too many female games but they sure hit the mark for appealing the males in the audience. I'd buy them if I had a use for them in any of my armies.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Manchu wrote:
Chongara wrote:
Assuming they're not wearing heels I failed to spot.
Lelith is barefoot: points added, points lost, or neither?


Neither. Here's roughly how my analysis for female character designs works.

Gain Points:
-Anything I think looks cool, even if it's not female character specific.
-Having 0 checks on the "Lose Points" list

Lose Points:
-Combat Heels
-Being mostly naked*
-Boob Plate
-Armor that doesn't cover the midriff.
-Proportions of Hitomi Tanaka

*There can be rare exceptions to this, with proper context. Most probably won't come up in miniatures/a war game.

Neutral:
-Anything Else
   
Made in us
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord




Inside Yvraine

 Boggy Man wrote:
 Melissia wrote:
BlaxicanX wrote:
Why do you guyseven want female models in the game?
Because it's more representative of the lore, and the lore is the only reaosn the game doesn't suck ass.

And as you noted, there's a lot of problems with it too. I'm really sick of hearing "the reason there's no female marines is gene-seed, blblabla"
No that's the EXCUSE, as to why there are no female space marines. The follow-up question "Why did they write that" would reveal the real reason. (I can't answer that as I wasn't there, but I could venture some very pointed guesses.)


Contrary to popular belief, not every action has an ulterior motive.

Why was Frodo a man and not a woman? Why was Mon Mothma a woman and not a man?!?!?!

sidenote: Why do men think that a female character isn't appealing to females if the character is scantily clad? Do men not buy Catachans because most of them have rippling 6-packs and aren't wearing shirts?

Wonder Woman's a feminist icon and she's been wearing underwear into battle for decades.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/02/28 22:26:58


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

@Chongara: She's also rocking a thong. Would that be more points off or points off as included in "mostly naked"?

Also, does Lelith's in-universe job curb her points deductions? She's a performer. She sensually fights for the titillation of spectators. Setting aside whether that's misogynistic (arguably not, as there is no reason to suspect Lelith is the best at this because she's female), I think that makes her outfit kind of appropriate.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/28 22:29:11


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Manchu wrote:
@Chongara: She's also rocking a thong. Would that be more points off or points off as included in "mostly naked"?

Also, does Lelith's in-universe job curb her points deductions? She's a performer. She sensually fights for the titillation of spectators. Setting aside whether that's misogynistic (arguably not, as there is no reason to suspect Lelith is the best at this because she's female), I think that makes her outfit kind of appropriate.


That gets filed under "Mostly Naked". That was a general overview, I'm sure I could find instances where I would take points off for a thong but I don't think it particularly changes anything with this model. Obviously If I stopped and listed out every little detail that could sort of count as "-50 DKP!" I'd be here a while.

There certainly are situations where say being an entertainer could prevent the docking of points for being mostly naked to naked. Depending on specifics, and this is key: So long as the character is being depicted in the context of solely being an entertainer.

In this case she may be an entertainer and that might be fine, it depends a lot on how it's handled. Though I'm not really confident enough in GW to give them the benefit of the doubt on that one. However, all that's irrelevant here because the context this model appears in is that of battlefield, here she's a warrior (and no if they've got some kind of thing with combat-as-performance it doesn't help make it "Count') when being depicted in this model.

Heck I'll even give it points for exploring different body types, even if that's not quite my thing. On the whole it doesn't really come out favourably for me. I'll say this much, it doesn't feel oversexualized in a particular exploitive manner the way a lot of designs to, which keeps it pretty far off the bottom of the barrel. I'm just not sure "not the bottom of the barrel", is particularly high praise, even coming from someone as admittedly critical as I am.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/28 22:42:50


 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

I like Lelith. You look at her and think "holy gak taht is one scary mother[bleep]er right there."

It can be argued that she's wearing skimpy clothes, but she is given a pose, a body type, and the equipment taht makes it apparent that she is good at her job, and it involves creating carpets made out of enemy corpses.

Even on a model that's skimpily dressed, a good pose taht doesn't just scream "we copied this from a softcore porno mag" can make or break the model. At least her clothes make SOME sort of sense, she is an agility fighter rather than a heavily armored one.
En Excelsis wrote:
A bunch of amateur psycho-analyzing by some random person on the internet.
No, we're not having this discussion.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/28 22:53:27


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 Melissia wrote:
At least her clothes make SOME sort of sense, she is an agility fighter rather than a heavily armored one.
I agree. I think Lelith is suitably dressed for the battlefield considering she takes to the battlefield less as a matter of war in the IG sense and more as a matter of a publicity stunt.

   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Yeah, she's pretty much explicitly not a soldier-- she's a performer and her art is death.

So I have no problem with her model. I kinda like it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/28 22:58:00


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

To me, the supreme example of GW "getting it right" with a female character is Shadowsun. That said, I would not be at all adverse to a "Zero Suit" version of Shadowsun.

   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter




Seattle

BlaxicanX wrote:
 Boggy Man wrote:
 Melissia wrote:
BlaxicanX wrote:
Why do you guyseven want female models in the game?
Because it's more representative of the lore, and the lore is the only reaosn the game doesn't suck ass.

And as you noted, there's a lot of problems with it too. I'm really sick of hearing "the reason there's no female marines is gene-seed, blblabla"
No that's the EXCUSE, as to why there are no female space marines. The follow-up question "Why did they write that" would reveal the real reason. (I can't answer that as I wasn't there, but I could venture some very pointed guesses.)


Contrary to popular belief, not every action has an ulterior motive.

Why was Frodo a man and not a woman? Why was Mon Mothma a woman and not a man?!?!?!

sidenote: Why do men think that a female character isn't appealing to females if the character is scantily clad? Do men not buy Catachans because most of them have rippling 6-packs and aren't wearing shirts?

Wonder Woman's a feminist icon and she's been wearing underwear into battle for decades.



Because James Kahn, who created the character for the novelization of Return of the Jedi, had experience with working with women in important social and business roles, and translated those experiences to the page? The character appearing in EpIII was as-yet unnamed.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mon_Mothma

Why was Frodo male? Because Tolkien was male, and he based the Hobbits on the people of England before, during, and after the 2nd World War. There's rather a lot of author projection into the Hobbits of Middle Earth, though not in a Mary Sue sort of way.

As far as the attire thing goes? Eh... I think this is a hold-over from most of Western societies' habit of slut-shaming and other body-shaming issues that we have. I know several female players (not of 40K, specifically, but of other fantasy and/or sci-fi games) who prefer their characters, or the figs used to represent them, to be either in something skin-tight or in as little as possible, whether this is an RPG, a table-top minis game or an MMO. This is not surprising to me, really, because RPGs are a form of escapist fantasy, where we guys get to be some kind of heroic figure, however we like to personally interpret that, whether we are some bronzed barbarian with 18/00 Strength and a 20 Constitution, a devastatingly intelligent, powerful wizard of moral ambiguity and weak physiology, a race-traitor who has forsaken his evil people to become a champion for Good, and so forth and so on, so why should it not be the same for women in the hobby? There's no easy answer to the question, though, as there's a number of reasons, some valid, that can cause it to be an issue.

Wonder Woman.... she's been doing more than *just* fighting in her underwear for half a century. There's... a lotta baggage in that character's history.

It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. 
   
Made in us
Shrieking Traitor Sentinel Pilot




New Bedford, MA

En Excelsis wrote:
http://www.ragingheroes.com/collections/complete-collection/products/preying-mantis
These models are very well sculpted and look much better than the deamonettes that GW currently has in their lineup. I doubt they are marketed towards too many female games but they sure hit the mark for appealing the males in the audience. I'd buy them if I had a use for them in any of my armies.

Those are excellent, a bit spendy but still better quality than what GW's putting out.

BlaxicanX wrote:

Contrary to popular belief, not every action has an ulterior motive.

Why was Frodo a man and not a woman? Why was Mon Mothma a woman and not a man?!?!?!

sidenote: Why do men think that a female character isn't appealing to females if the character is scantily clad? Do men not buy Catachans because most of them have rippling 6-packs and aren't wearing shirts?

Wonder Woman's a feminist icon and she's been wearing underwear into battle for decades.


Frodo was a man? I thought he was a halfling! This changes everything!
I get what you mean, I myself was a little disgusted at Nostalgia Chick when she fell into the sophomoric 'orks=minorities' humbug in her LOTR reviews this month. I wouldn't hang blatant motives on the original writers (40k was originally a self parody of grimderp) but I do think whoever wrote that particular tidbit was very shortsighted. (Early 80's nerd culture was still a boys club, and insularity breeds myopia.)

I'm a big fan of Wondy myself (In her better incarnations that is; Perez and Simone, not that Byrne or Miller gak.) It's not so much exposed arms and legs that I have a problem with, it's the total presentation. Tank Girl is naked in half her stories but still kicks ass. Elen Ripley escaped in underwear but is still a strong character. "Samus In Name Only" in Other M wears a full body armor suit but still manages to invoke the worst stereotypes of weak man-dependent "girls" that the developers could toss out.

I don't have a problem with sexy, but sexy to me does not equal "tittering blond wearing shoelaces".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/28 23:04:22


I notice my posts seem to bring threads to a screeching halt. Considering the content of most threads on dakka, you're welcome. 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

A better discussion of Wonder Woman is done here by Linkara.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/linkara/at4w/5109-amazons-attack-prologue

There has been a long and unfortunate history in how DC's various writers have handled her.

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion





BlaxicanX wrote:

Contrary to popular belief, not every action has an ulterior motive.

Why was Frodo a man and not a woman? Why was Mon Mothma a woman and not a man?!?!?!

sidenote: Why do men think that a female character isn't appealing to females if the character is scantily clad? Do men not buy Catachans because most of them have rippling 6-packs and aren't wearing shirts?

Wonder Woman's a feminist icon and she's been wearing underwear into battle for decades.



Excellent point. And one I don't have a concrete answer for.

I think the beginning of an answer can be found though in the context if not the content of the previous posts.

There are many facets to this particular hobby. The collecting, assembling, painting, and sculpting of models are all hobbies in their own right. But one you get to the playing of the game, it becomes about conquest. Sure it is ultimately a game and since no one is actually injured by defeat it remains friendly and even amicable. IMO friends make the best opponents. But there is still the lingering fact that the game itself is about conquest. victory. It's about defeating your opponent.

Just like Orks know what is inherently "Orky", men know what is inherently "Manly" (obviously some exclusions apply). One of those inherently "manly" things is conquest. Competition. Pitting your self via mind or body against a foe and struggling for dominance. It's been part of our history for... ever. From warfare to sporting events, competition is been part of male society since the beginning of time. It's not a bad thing... the Olympics are a great example of how nations can put their differences aside and compete against ne another in a peaceful way.

And while the nature of competition does not, by it's nature preclude the involvement of females, it does carry with it some intangible quality that could be called "manly".

For that reason, when I am constructing my army, I would obviously like to win, and that becomes a factor in my collection of models, not just the appearance of the models themselves. Yes, Catachans are huge bulky dudes clearly crafted to appear like Rambo or other "action heroes" from pop culture... but that is not their sole appeal. they are also a useful, and quite practical unit in an Imperial Guard army.

When looking at the female models, the same rules apply. A perfect example recently presented itself: My CWE army formerly contained a few squads of Howling Banshees. After the shift to 6th Edition that particular group of models was no longer able to perform to m expectations and I replaced them with Striking Scorpions.

That choice had very little to do with the model itself, and was motivated more by my desire to emulate a specific splay style, and in part because I thought it would increase my overall chance for victory.


   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






BlaxicanX wrote:
sidenote: Why do men think that a female character isn't appealing to females if the character is scantily clad? Do men not buy Catachans because most of them have rippling 6-packs and aren't wearing shirts?


Because those two are not equivalent.

The scantily-clad female models are meant to appeal to a male audience by saying "look at how sexy she is, you want to have her".

The scantily-clad male models are meant to appeal to a male audience by saying "look at how powerful he is, you want to BE him".

In both cases it's primarily about the male fantasy.

(And yes, some women are attracted to one or both of them. That doesn't change the intent of the marketing.)

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter




Seattle

Just like Orks know what is inherently "Orky", men know what is inherently "Manly" (obviously some exclusions apply). One of those inherently "manly" things is conquest. Competition. Pitting your self via mind or body against a foe and struggling for dominance. It's been part of our history for... ever. From warfare to sporting events, competition is been part of male society since the beginning of time. It's not a bad thing... the Olympics are a great example of how nations can put their differences aside and compete against ne another in a peaceful way.


Several queens throughout history would like to have a word with you. There is nothing inherently "manly" about conquest. There is something inherently *human* about it, though. Competition? There have been historically female sports, too. After all, Nike was the goddess of victory.

Unit stats are completely separate from their appearance on the table-top. Hence various "counts as" processes. If you want, field a bunch of female soldiers from other product lines for Catachans. They'll perform exactly the same.

It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Also, I should note that during the recent MMA bouts, the womens' bout was considered much more exciting than the male bout-- the men danced about and were extremely cautious, while the women were highly aggressive. One of them obtained a vicious rear naked choke hold within five seconds of the round starting, and the other one just barely managed to get out of it, before winning via an armbar submission. Despite it never getting past the first round, that match was rated higher by fans and sponsors alike for the athleticism, skill, and aggression that the women showed than any of the mens' matches.

The men danced about, took pot shots, and had many long rounds, but they weren't very competitive or aggressive compared to the women. If you think women can't or won't be intensely competitive, apparently you haven't been paying much attention to the women in your life. Even in things that aren't about fighting or warfare, we are very competitive. Competitiveness is a human trait, not a male one

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/28 23:33:41


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in eu
Hallowed Canoness




Ireland

I have to say, I don't really like the new Wyches. Muscular women are perfectly fine, and I think this might be what the designer went for, but ... it just doesn't really look all that good.
Perhaps it's just the paintjob, or my resistance to deviate from the "elves = lithe" idea that is almost hardcoded into fiction these days.
Like with GW's Daemonettes, I actually prefer the old Wyches. The new ones look a bit too much like "brute force" rather than acrobatics/speed - and whilst I am certain that DE Wyches employ it all, I believe emphasis should be on the latter.

Lelith herself actually looks much better, so maybe it's just individual models looking "off" rather than the entire range?

En Excelsis wrote:If 1% of people show up at a typical convention, and 1% of those people are female. That is an extremely small number. If that number suddenly rose to show that 30% of those attendants were female, it would still only be 30% of 1% of the worlds population.
I guess GW should just close their office then if 1% is such a small number that 30% of that would be entirely irrelevant. I'm sure there's better business to be had elsewhere.

En Excelsis wrote:Extrapolate that into the world of 40k. The Imperium of Man encompasses billions of worlds, and countless trillions of human beings. Of that, the sisters of battle, even if their number were a million strong (which it is not) they would still represent only a fraction of a percent of the Imperium at large. The same is true of the Inquisition, or the Assassin Houses. How is that showing any kind of equality?
Spoiler:


Protip: Two of those are girls.

Also, I would rather ask what, in your mind, shows any kind of inequality in the setting, as far as the Imperium at large is concerned. I think you're really just projecting your own preferences onto the background, and whilst that is, in general, a perfectly valid approach given the "soft" nature of its canon, it would be wrong to claim said preferences as fact.

En Excelsis wrote:This includes everything from logistics and communication to propaganda, uniform production, food distribution, construction, repair, and navigation. And countless more besides. Many of those station are either gender-neutral, or would be better filled by a female than a male.
There is so much wrong in this short segment of your post ... yet at the same time it explains a lot regarding the message of your previous posts.
I guess the 21st century just isn't for everyone.

And the difference between the Imperial Guard and the Departmento Munitorum has already been explained by Psienesis.

Melissia wrote:Also, I should note that during the recent MMA bouts, the womens' bout was considered much more exciting than the male bout-- the men danced about and were extremely cautious, while the women were highly aggressive.
That actually reminds me of historical accounts regarding female warriors encountered by Roman Legions in Europe, or French Colonial Troops in Africa.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/28 23:51:11


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Background
Go to: