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.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Well, part of that is our society hasn't spent a long time fetishising male vulnerability, so it doesn't map entirely. One of the things that disempowers female characters is that attempt at emphasising vulnerability, which is a key part of why battle-heels are dumb. When someone tries to make an attractive female character they might play up that vulnerability but that probably won't be part of a depiction of an attractive man.

One thing I really hate when supposedly combat-capable women warriors are depicted in silly pin-up or 'cute' poses (this is something GW luckily does not do.) I don't mind sexy or even naked, but a combatant should look capable and threatening, not like a damsel in distress.

However, I don't get why heels automatically connect to vulnerability. Sure in real life combat they would be massively impractical, but in GW art (mostly Blanche's) heels on female SoBs and assassins are clearly a fetish thing, and the heels are often weaponised. They're to make them look more powerful, not less.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:If you discard male-as-default or the idea that the miniature has to be identifiably female because it is female then that process gets derailed, but it's easy to see where it comes from even without "mua ha ha ha we must make this mini as sexy as possible to pander to our male customers! Making our female customers uncomfortable is a small price to pay if we can titillate the male ones *twirls moustache*".

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:Well, part of that is our society hasn't spent a long time fetishising male vulnerability, so it doesn't map entirely. [...] In general, Beefcake 9000 isn't the idealised male body shape for women. Maybe it can be attractive in its way (YMMV, obviously) but I think your typical idealised man is somewhat muscular, but not overly so. That's part of the thing, here - the women are designed to appeal to men, and the men are designed to appeal to men.

Yeah, true. The idea of vulnerability being an aspect of sexuality is interesting and might warrant further discussion about phenomena such as boy groups or metrosexuality, and how the male-dominated society feels threatened by "gay stuff".

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:I'm not sure I'd call them fab or prettyboys, but they seem to fit in with the other wyches pretty well!

Exactly! When -everybody- is "fetishised", then it's simply a part of the respective culture and should not evoke feelings of gender bias. Thusly, the old Dark Eldar Wyches are actually an excellent example of equal treatment.

Crimson wrote:However, I don't get why heels automatically connect to vulnerability. Sure in real life combat they would be massively impractical, but in GW art (mostly Blanche's) heels on female SoBs and assassins are clearly a fetish thing, and the heels are often weaponised. They're to make them look more powerful, not less.

Have to agree with Crimson here - with the Assassins, it looks like they would actually use their feet to stab people.
... makes me wonder if that may not be someone's fetish, too.

I'm still fortunate that the actual SoB mini and most artwork aside from that one Codex cover does not depict Sisters in heels, tho. I've always seen them as combat infantry and they would simply lack the Assassins' "grace" to actually utilise them as tools of war.

 Crimson wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Well, part of that is our society hasn't spent a long time fetishising male vulnerability, so it doesn't map entirely. One of the things that disempowers female characters is that attempt at emphasising vulnerability, which is a key part of why battle-heels are dumb. When someone tries to make an attractive female character they might play up that vulnerability but that probably won't be part of a depiction of an attractive man.

One thing I really hate when supposedly combat-capable women warriors are depicted in silly pin-up or 'cute' poses (this is something GW luckily does not do.) I don't mind sexy or even naked, but a combatant should look capable and threatening, not like a damsel in distress.

However, I don't get why heels automatically connect to vulnerability. Sure in real life combat they would be massively impractical, but in GW art (mostly Blanche's) heels on female SoBs and assassins are clearly a fetish thing, and the heels are often weaponised. They're to make them look more powerful, not less.

I think it may be better to just dismiss the "poses" of the models altogether. Most of them make no sense at all, be they male or female models. I am less concerned with the fact that female models are "striking a pose" and much more concerned that any lieutenant with half a brain is wandering around a battlefield without a helmet! Why are some models "in motion" why others are sculpted more to resemble a soldier in formation or at ease? The answer is that they are not trying to actually depict any one specific act. instead they are trying to convey an overall feel for the character. Models in chaos armies holding their victims heads are not sculpted that way to imply that they are pausing from battle to examine some curious specimen. More likely we are supposed to imagine that he is displaying some grisly trophy to unnerve her enemies. Likewise a female model may be sculpted in a "pose" not to imply that she is literally filming a modeling shoot on the battlefield, and more to give the players the impression that she possesses feminine qualities that would otherwise be difficult to showcase. If the model designers took a realistic or practical approach to their designs, it would probably be genuinely difficult for players to distinguish between male and female models at all. They have to exaggerate the things that readily stand out as being feminine to communicate that when you are not looking at a real woman but a 28mm scale miniature.

I think it may be better to just dismiss the "poses" of the models altogether.

The easy thing isn't always the best.

Madruker wrote:
If the model designers took a realistic or practical approach to their designs, it would probably be genuinely difficult for players to distinguish between male and female models at all.

Yes. I'm okay with it being difficult to distinguish. The example I gave earlier was Eldrad. If you had told me Eldrad was a woman, that would be fine. There is literally no way to tell otherwise. Just actually tell me that's the case instead of making all of the characters male for no apparent reason and even describing what are meant to be mixed gender units as male (as in the case of most of the aspect warriors, or imperial guard, for instance).

The ideal for me would be if you could put a helmeted model on the table and not have the automatic assumption that it's male.

Madruker wrote:
If the model designers took a realistic or practical approach to their designs, it would probably be genuinely difficult for players to distinguish between male and female models at all.

Realism isn't all-or-nothing. For example you could have nice "practical" Cadian-style armor on your female IG models but have different chest shapes (without being revealing, just change the shape of the armor) and different hair. It might not stand out from across the table (but it doesn't need to, the only things you need to see at cross-table distance are weapons and equipment, not fluff details) but it's still obviously a female model without being a hopelessly unrealistic sex object. In fact, a moderate approach like that would probably be more realistic than a lot of things in 40k.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Yes. I'm okay with it being difficult to distinguish. The example I gave earlier was Eldrad. If you had told me Eldrad was a woman, that would be fine. There is literally no way to tell otherwise. Just actually tell me that's the case instead of making all of the characters male for no apparent reason and even describing what are meant to be mixed gender units as male (as in the case of most of the aspect warriors, or imperial guard, for instance).

The ideal for me would be if you could put a helmeted model on the table and not have the automatic assumption that it's male.

Aspect armor looks the way it does on purpose. It's part of the aspect. Even male Howling Banshees have the feminine armor, for example.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Yes. I'm okay with it being difficult to distinguish. The example I gave earlier was Eldrad. If you had told me Eldrad was a woman, that would be fine. There is literally no way to tell otherwise. Just actually tell me that's the case instead of making all of the characters male for no apparent reason and even describing what are meant to be mixed gender units as male (as in the case of most of the aspect warriors, or imperial guard, for instance).

The ideal for me would be if you could put a helmeted model on the table and not have the automatic assumption that it's male.

Aspect armor looks the way it does on purpose. It's part of the aspect. Even male Howling Banshees have the feminine armor, for example.

And yet the codex refers to every trooper in it other than Howling Banshees with male pronouns, and every Phoenix Lord other than Jain Zar - the Howling Banshee Phoenix Lord - is male. There isn't even a female character in it other than her. Doesn't really make any sense given the codex says both male and female eldar choose the warrior aspects.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Yes. I'm okay with it being difficult to distinguish. The example I gave earlier was Eldrad. If you had told me Eldrad was a woman, that would be fine. There is literally no way to tell otherwise. Just actually tell me that's the case instead of making all of the characters male for no apparent reason and even describing what are meant to be mixed gender units as male (as in the case of most of the aspect warriors, or imperial guard, for instance).

The ideal for me would be if you could put a helmeted model on the table and not have the automatic assumption that it's male.

Aspect armor looks the way it does on purpose. It's part of the aspect. Even male Howling Banshees have the feminine armor, for example.

And yet the codex refers to every trooper in it other than Howling Banshees with male pronouns, and every Phoenix Lord other than Jain Zar - the Howling Banshee Phoenix Lord - is male. There isn't even a female character in it other than her. Doesn't really make any sense given the codex says both male and female eldar choose the warrior aspects.

Actually would the Phoenix Lords even count since they take over the mind of the current wearer of their armor?

So we could have Male Jain Zar, and Female others if they possess the right body.

 Peregrine wrote:

Madruker wrote:
If the model designers took a realistic or practical approach to their designs, it would probably be genuinely difficult for players to distinguish between male and female models at all.

...It might not stand out from across the table (but it doesn't need to, the only things you need to see at cross-table distance are weapons and equipment, not fluff details)...

I'd love to see subtle female models, even if it's as simple as a face change and slightly smaller bodies/limbs on guardsmen. Making space strippers on the other hand would not only be grossly inappropriate, but make for horribly ugly models that I wouldn't buy in a million years.

I agree that they don't need to be noticeable when looking across the table. In fact, it's better if they're not. Just like few people noticed the cigar in my Marbo's mouth on the table, but will comment on it when they look at him close up. The key point is that they know the models are representing Imperial Guard. If upon closer inspection people notice they are a mix of male and female that would be great.

Changing a game and fictional universe to rid "misogyny" shouldn't be in-your-face. There should be no "Look at the new Commissar Yarrick: Now with breasts!" It should just come in as though nothing has changed, because in reality, only intellectually challenged people would have a problem with female leaders, heroes or grunts.

Let's just say this subject is very prejudiced-and than the grim darkness of the future should be faced by all of those who have the courage to fight, male or female.

I disagree entirely, I find that there are an abundance of female characters that are very dear to both the author and the reader. There are the Ghosts from Abnett and Amberley Veil from Sandy Mitchell. There's the Sisters of battle from James Swallows Faith and Fire and Hammer and Anvil. Not to mention Euphrati Keeler, Mersadie Olitan and Syreena from the Horus Heresy. No, there may not be an equal number of female to male characters, but this is in no way misogynistic.

These are all characters that readers care for, that hope to see survive and flourish in an environment as dark as the 41st millenium, but females to survive in the same environments that so many other fall in, is a touch of realism, and a bitter one at that.
I would also like to hear an example of a female character being sexually exploited, as one doesn't spring to mind.

While I would say that 40k is much better about that than most settings and so I really don't focus on the "sexually exploited" line, I would like to point out the Dark Eldar slave-girls, which are pretty blatantly sex slaves. Aaaaaand of course one of them is a sororitas in the official art, because you can't have a strong, capable female without eventually turning her in to a sex toy.

It's just tasteless and stupid, and the models are pretty lame too. There's far better "slave girl" models out there

It would be unrealistic if Dark Eldar did not have slave girls, considering their lore and themes.

But of course, for the sake of equality, the only realistic course of action would be for GW to model up some hunky slave men.

Sex slaves are very fitting for DE, but they should have had slave-boys as well.

(Edit: Bloody ninjas!)

 Lake wrote:
I disagree entirely, I find that there are an abundance of female characters that are very dear to both the author and the reader. There are the Ghosts from Abnett and Amberley Veil from Sandy Mitchell. There's the Sisters of battle from James Swallows Faith and Fire and Hammer and Anvil. Not to mention Euphrati Keeler, Mersadie Olitan and Syreena from the Horus Heresy. No, there may not be an equal number of female to male characters, but this is in no way misogynistic.

These are all characters that readers care for, that hope to see survive and flourish in an environment as dark as the 41st millenium, but females to survive in the same environments that so many other fall in, is a touch of realism, and a bitter one at that.
I would also like to hear an example of a female character being sexually exploited, as one doesn't spring to mind.

Fluff outside of codices is secondary.

There are no human female characters outside of psykers, inquisitors, Sisters of Battle, and assassins in the codices. Sisters of Battle are sexed up space nuns with guns. Death Cult Assassins are S&M Bloodknights. There are no 'normal' females. No Imperial Guard heroines depicted. Females are explicitly not allowed to be Space Marines, which is outright sexist.

Steriods and other PEDs lower the difference in physical potential between male and female even now. In a setting with advanced genetic engineering such as 40k there should be no difference between male and female.

Only Eldar and Dark Eldar actually have decent female characters. I don't know why. Elvish races always seem to have more powerful female leads than other races.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
While I would say that 40k is much better about that than most settings and so I really don't focus on the "sexually exploited" line, I would like to point out the Dark Eldar slave-girls, which are pretty blatantly sex slaves. Aaaaaand of course one of them is a sororitas in the official art, because you can't have a strong, capable female without eventually turning her in to a sex toy.

It's just tasteless and stupid, and the models are pretty lame too. There's far better "slave girl" models out there

Rule 34


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
It would be unrealistic if Dark Eldar did not have slave girls, considering their lore and themes.

But of course, for the sake of equality, the only realistic course of action would be for GW to model up some hunky slave men.

Hawkeye Initiative

This is just me but a girl doesn't need to be a pair of tits on legs to look good - in the miniatures world (GW being worse than most) we need more realistically proportioned women with the old "Jacket and Fatigues" look (IE. the same gear as the men, but a size smaller).

Distasteful as it sounds some cultures will have sex slaves, but the abundance of bondage themed gear is a little scary.

Also for any faction that allows phykers would it not be awesome to have a girl, protected by a force-field, and blasting away with lightning and fire? (We are talking uber-phyker)

last but not least:
IG - More women!
Chaos - More women!
SM - women - period (No pun intended)

How would you integrate women into Space Marines?

Ok so this post may be a little inflammatory to some people but in my opinion there are very few realistic or normal female characters in gw products because most people who work at gw just straight up don't understand normal women and are marketing them to men who have immature and sexist expectations of women. At least 80% of all female models in gw products have breasts exposed or are otherwise sexualised and I don't think there's even one male model that is sexualised in any way. I mean there's the odd model like female DE warriors that are 100% normal but I think for the most part gw is incredibly sexist.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
How would you integrate women into Space Marines?

Just do it. The Imperium can't make a plasma gun that doesn't randomly explode; their current capabilities are not stone cold law. Just say there was a breakthrough in genetic archaeology that allowed the gene seed to be bonded to females. Boom, done, the Imperium now has female marines.

 Boggy Man wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
How would you integrate women into Space Marines?

Just do it. The Imperium can't make a plasma gun that doesn't randomly explode; their current capabilities are not stone cold law. Just say there was a breakthrough in genetic archaeology that allowed the gene seed to be bonded to females. Boom, done, the Imperium now has female marines.

Wow... You took the words right out of my mouth.

It's a setting where there is only war.

You either have unrealistic female characters as sex objects or you have unrealistic female characters as capable combatants.


The game, and the setting, is primarily geared to appeal to a male demographic.


I mean, I don't oppose the idea of there being female characters, but at the same time, there's no real need to shoehorn them into the setting either. Not much time is spent on rear echelon support units, or domestic life. Thus, less room for female characters. There was that mediocre series of novels that I think I read part of one before losing interest with a female Adeptus Arbites character as the protagonist. The video game Space Marine had a female lieutenant who had been a comms officer or something and had taken up command when all the rest of the officers died. Those seem like fairly competent and believable female characters for the setting.

Why aren't there more female Guardsmen in the stories? Women are just less well suited for the rigors of combat, on the average, so armies in the future are constructed similarly to all the ones of modern times and history. Males of the species are also less crucial to the reproductive process (in that they do not have to be physically present for anything except the generation of seed which can be stored). Thus, as an instrument of war, they are more expendable.

Expendability mated to greater combat utility means that an ideally comprised Imperial Guard unit doesn't need female troopers for its line strength. And in a galaxy of bajillions, they aren't running low on dudes.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
How would you integrate women into Space Marines?

Somebody has to clean the armor and wash all the dishes.


Ultimately, the question is this: Why fix what ain't broke? Again, in a universe of bajillions, there are a million Space Marines, give or take. There's no shortage of human babies, and the male body provides a superior platform for physical capability.

Answer this question: If you're going to create a super warrior from scratch and you only need a relatively small number of them, why would you bother using an inferior platform (female physiology) to create them with?

If Space Marines were mass produced, I could see the need for more relaxed standards. But they aren't. Each chapter handles its own recruitment and replacement, and rarely has more than a few hundred prospect Marines in the pipeline at any given time.

So they should retcon an aspect of the setting that has been there since the beginning in a blatant and hamfisted attempt to pander towards some segments of the fanbase.

Brilliant, and while we are at it, we should allow men to join the Adeptus Sororitas as well.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
It would be unrealistic if Dark Eldar did not have slave girls, considering their lore and themes.

I dunno if I'd use the word unrealistic but I agree with your general idea -- except, in that same vein, wouldn't it be just as "realistic" if they were using a SM as a sex toy as a SoB?

 Void__Dragon wrote:
But of course, for the sake of equality, the only realistic course of action would be for GW to model up some hunky slave men.

See, I don't think it would be "for the sake of equality."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amaya wrote:
Rule 34

That's a rule of the internet, not a rule of the wargaming miniatures market (yet).

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
It's a setting where there is only war.

You either have unrealistic female characters as sex objects or you have unrealistic female characters as capable combatants.


The game, and the setting, is primarily geared to appeal to a male demographic.


I mean, I don't oppose the idea of there being female characters, but at the same time, there's no real need to shoehorn them into the setting either. Not much time is spent on rear echelon support units, or domestic life. Thus, less room for female characters. There was that mediocre series of novels that I think I read part of one before losing interest with a female Adeptus Arbites character as the protagonist. The video game Space Marine had a female lieutenant who had been a comms officer or something and had taken up command when all the rest of the officers died. Those seem like fairly competent and believable female characters for the setting.

Why aren't there more female Guardsmen in the stories? Women are just less well suited for the rigors of combat, on the average, so armies in the future are constructed similarly to all the ones of modern times and history. Males of the species are also less crucial to the reproductive process (in that they do not have to be physically present for anything except the generation of seed which can be stored). Thus, as an instrument of war, they are more expendable.

Expendability mated to greater combat utility means that an ideally comprised Imperial Guard unit doesn't need female troopers for its line strength. And in a galaxy of bajillions, they aren't running low on dudes.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
How would you integrate women into Space Marines?

Somebody has to clean the armor and wash all the dishes.


Ultimately, the question is this: Why fix what ain't broke? Again, in a universe of bajillions, there are a million Space Marines, give or take. There's no shortage of human babies, and the male body provides a superior platform for physical capability.

Answer this question: If you're going to create a super warrior from scratch and you only need a relatively small number of them, why would you bother using an inferior platform (female physiology) to create them with?

If Space Marines were mass produced, I could see the need for more relaxed standards. But they aren't. Each chapter handles its own recruitment and replacement, and rarely has more than a few hundred prospect Marines in the pipeline at any given time.

I do sometimes wonder if you really do want to cause offense to other posters by the tone of your replies - you often have interesting content or views but why phrase in such a way as to automatically wind certain people up? Is it intentional?

in reply:

Space Marine's female character - why do you asume she is rear echolon? I just assumed she was the last ranking officer of the Guard - she is a part of the intial front line drop onto the planet IIRC - so its likely this is the case?

An interesting review of her character here:

http://designislaw.tumblr.com/post/10076180504/warhammer-40-000-space-marine-most-suprisingly

Why fix it - cos many of us like using cool female minis - they sell plenty well enough if you look around at other ranges - Warmachine/ Malifeux, plus gordes of independants- be nice to have proper ones for the 40k Universe - certainaly rather have them the dire succession of new space marine flyers, some of the horrible recent demons and other rubbish models over the last year.

There is no actual reason for them not to do it...............it fits the universe - "I have only one rule - everyone fights" to quote another rather awesome future war film.............

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
You either have unrealistic female characters as sex objects or you have unrealistic female characters as capable combatants.

Even if it were the case, and I'm not saying it is, that women are not capable combatants IRL -- what would that matter to this sci-fantasy setting? Keep in mind, I'm not talking about retconning the SM to shoehorn in Femarines. I'm talking about "living up to the fluff" by having more Guardswomen models and so forth. The existence of Guardswomen seems a lot less fantastical than the existence of SM to me ... since female combat troops actually exist IRL. Plus, what's objectionable about female characters being portrayed as sex objects isn't that it's unrealistic. The problem is that it reflects an offensive attitude that exists in reality.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
So they should retcon an aspect of the setting that has been there since the beginning in a blatant and hamfisted attempt to pander towards some segments of the fanbase.
Brilliant, and while we are at it, we should allow men to join the Adeptus Sororitas as well.

1. A new development is not a retcon
2. You would have a problem with this, but not disappearing squats and Necron/Blood raven BFFs?
3. "Pandering to the fanbase", you mean giving the fans what they want? This is bad because...?
4. I was not rude to you. Act like a jackass some more and all you'll do is make the ignore list.

 Manchu wrote:
I dunno if I'd use the word unrealistic but I agree with your general idea -- except, in that same vein, wouldn't it be just as "realistic" if they were using a SM as a sex toy as a SoB?

I fully support the idea of a beefed out Space Marine model stripped to his loin cloth at the ankles of a Dark Eldar, I am glad you agree.

See, I don't think it would be "for the sake of equality."

No, mostly just for the sake of my own perversions, that is true.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Answer this question: If you're going to create a super warrior from scratch and you only need a relatively small number of them, why would you bother using an inferior platform (female physiology) to create them with?

Elite specialist roles requiring more finesse, dexterity, and reflexes than the walking refrigerators can provide. For more information, feel free to ask any "superior" German soldier whose head was turned to pudding by a female Soviet sniper. (Not that I reckon you'd get much response.)

 Boggy Man wrote:
1. A new development is not a retcon

It would be an unrealistic development considering the single most scientifically capable and brilliant human mind in existence was incapable of making it.

2. You would have a problem with this, but not disappearing squats and Necron/Blood raven BFFs?

That's a very nice strawman you have there, did you dress it up yourself? I really like the hat.

Ask anyone who has spoken to me on here exactly how I feel about the overhaul concerning the Necron lore, "okay with it" is not exactly how I felt.

3. "Pandering to the fanbase", you mean giving the fans what they want? This is bad because...?

Most fans don't want female Space Marines. For the same reason that most don't want male Sisters of Battle.

4. I was not rude to you. Act like a jackass some more and all you'll do is make the ignore list.

I truly do not care who is on your ignore list, that you believe this warrants as a threat on your part is infinitely amusing.

I can't agree with the entirety of Veteran Sergeant's post, but he had this right: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Space Marines being a fraternity of homoerotic warrior monks is a long-established aspect of the setting, one that should not be changed solely in a hamfisted attempt to give your sterile, physically inhuman posthuman an extra x chromosome. More female Inquisitors? Sure, Valeria needs a model. Options for female Imperial Guard units? Also fine. feth, I'd be okay with female Necron Overlords (Or ladies, as it might be), though IMO gender would be almost irrelevant as an aspect of a Necron's character. There are already plenty of fluff-friendly ways to represent women on the tabletop. Female Space Marines is not one of them.