Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.

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.

**Melissia**

Void__Dragon wrote:
Point out where I said that there definitely were not, say, a company of Marines there.

You are being pedantic to the point of nonsense.

**BlaxicanX**

No he's not. He's debating.

Go look up what "burden of proof" is.

**Melissia**

BlaxicanX wrote:
No he's not. He's debating.

In order to debate he'd first have to actually take a stance himself.

**Void__Dragon**

Indeed that is true.

I am simply pointing out the flaws in the logic of others.

**Furyou Miko**

What he's doing is what we colloquially term "S*** stirring". Which, while it can be useful for stimulating discussion... at this point it just comes across as aggravating, because there is no other point of discussion.

**Void__Dragon**

The discussion shifted towards Space Marines vs. Sisters of Battle. I am not sure why, but it did.

Melissia made the claim that the Sisters of Battle easily repelled a large band of Chaos Marines.

All of that is factual except the "large" part, the amount of Marines is not even hinted at. It's applicability to the topic at hand is dubious at best due to the serious lack of any context that would allow us a good analysis.

**BlaxicanX**

Furyou Miko wrote:
What he's doing is what we colloquially term "S*** stirring". Which, while it can be useful for stimulating discussion... at this point it just comes across as aggravating, because there is no other point of discussion.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that the Chaos strike force was the size of a company. =)

**Furyou Miko**

Anything smaller than a Company would have struggled to get at an Imperial shrine world without a renegade fleet.

**Void__Dragon**

I truly doubt they did not have cultists flying their craft.

**Amaya**

Furyou Miko wrote:
Anything smaller than a Company would have struggled to get at an Imperial shrine world without a renegade fleet.

And when you make statements like this, the burden of proof is upon you to back it up somehow.

**BlaxicanX**

Furyou Miko wrote:
Anything smaller than a Company would have struggled to get at an Imperial shrine world without a renegade fleet.

This isn't evidence. Do you understand what burden of proof is?

**Melissia**

I only listed that as it was the only example I could actually think of from new lore, when someone was asking for examples (in hindsight, they weren't actually asking for examples, but whatever). I don't actually CARE enough about the so-called "codex" of fifth edition to get in to this pedantic, nonsense argument about a vague fluff bit that GW vomited out in to a half-assed codex and then proceeded to promptly ignore the hell out of.

Let's try to not keep getting dragged off in to this little tangent. Frankly, Sisters of Battle aren't really "normal" any way. The only ones that could be described as normal in my view are Guardswomen and Eldar Guardians.

**BlaxicanX**

I accept your concession.

edit- Damn right you edited. lol. Don't bring that gak up in here.

**Melissia**

It's not a concession, I just wanted to try to remove any antagonistic parts of it and get the topic back on topic.

**Furyou Miko**

Burden of proof means that the person challenging the established information is responsible for proving their claim.

However, since I'm simply putting forward the established information (That a strike force of Crimson whatevers was wiped out by Sisters of Battle in an engagement large enough to be called a 'massacre'), the burden of proof actually lies with you.

**Amaya**

Furyou Miko wrote:
Burden of proof means that the person challenging the established information is responsible for proving their claim.

However, since I'm simply putting forward the established information (That a strike force of Crimson whatevers was wiped out by Sisters of Battle in an engagement large enough to be called a 'massacre'), the burden of proof actually lies with you.

Again you misuse words.

Events with less than twenty dead have been called massacres.

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

Multiple events with less than one hundred dead and a few with under fifty. Quantity of dead is not a variable in calling something a massacre. It is the complete domination of one force over another, typically involving the near complete destruction of the defeated force.

**Furyou Miko**

Edit: Stupid thing doubled my post.

Edit 2: One moment my post is there twice, the next it's gone. The hell?

Original post;

Yet you choose to refute the part of my post you can, rather than actually answering the point I raised.

Melissia brings up a good point in that we can't really call Sisters "normal women" though.

**cadbren**

Okay, so the SOB stories can now end and we can agree that Marines are all SoBs anyway.

So what are these stories starring the girls that people want to see?
I don't know about females per se, but I'd like to see more stories set amongst the civilian populations of the Imperium like we've seen with the various stories involving inquisitors and arbites.

**Amaya**

Furyou Miko wrote:
Edit: Stupid thing doubled my post.

Edit 2: One moment my post is there twice, the next it's gone. The hell?

Original post;

Yet you choose to refute the part of my post you can, rather than actually answering the point I raised.

Melissia brings up a good point in that we can't really call Sisters "normal women" though.

Who are you responding to?

**mattyrm**

Back on topic, Ive changed from I somewhat agree to I disagree after reading the whole thread.

The fact is, they have done a decent job of properly representing women, in the real military women are outnumbered heavily, its got to be 10 to 1.

And yet, there are absolutely loads of women in the 40k setting, as has been pointed out.. plenty in the HH, pilots, planetary governors, inquisitors, leaders, fighters, many that inspire.

Sure some are jiggly and cliched, but plenty arent.

And hey, plenty of women actually are jiggly and cliched in real life as well right?

For every sensible intellectual woman like my missus, clearly a fething genius because she is with me, there is one that enjoys reality TV, gossip mags, wearing leather, batting her eyelashes and courting attention, a lifetime spent in bars and pubs shows you that.

As a result, surely the balance is about spot on?

In the setting, some men are good, some men are evil, some are dumb, some aren't.

Women, some are awesome and inspiring, and some are dumb and slutty and cliched, there are just less of the characters in the novels because generally war gak has less women in it as a whole.

Isn't that about right proportionately?

**GreySkull**

ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:
I think it’s a major flaw and is in fact killing the series and keeping it from being what it could be. This is because well rounded characters and varying personalities and perspectives gives stories depth, people complain about lack of love in 40k but how can you have love when every female character is a pious sexually repressed nun, a snobbish aristocrat, or a sex slave captured by the dark elder. Often those who make fun of the sisters of battle are accused of misogyny and often the accusation is correct but again what do you expect, they've been set up to be Sci-Fi snuff, with dd's and beads and a "device", that looks like a chastity belt around their crotches along with matt wards bizarre fantasies mixed in the sisters of battle are obviously not meant to be taken seriously and for the most part their not.

The Solution: Include normal female characters that aren't getting chopped up or sexually enslaved. I believe ADB has done a great job with this in his books particularly in Soul Hunter where he actually had a love story, and had female characters that played non sexual roles such as Octavia’s servants and female members of the bridge crew. I think Chaos would be the best place to start with this introduction, the Imperials have already been fleshed out pretty will and it’s easier to add new material than to change material already in existence. Where lacking fluff on the mortal servants of Chaos, this seems like a great place to add normal female characters, partisans and resistance leaders fighting the Imperium, or captains leading the warmasters ships(their not all commanded by Chaos Marines after all), maybe some that got tired of the old boys club in the Imperium and did'nt want to be either a nun or the wife/plaything of an Imperial officer/gangleader/noble. This is a blunt and honest post and I demand blunt and honest responses. No sugarcoating. I'm making a poll of whether you agree completely, somewhat, or disagree completely so I can gauge overall opinion.

The female commissar comes to mind. What idiot, man or woman, would wear a suit, to a battlefield (in the 40k universe mind you) that exposed their cleavage/chest? Seriously. This is the bloodiest universe I know where battles of unimaginable size can wage across entire systems and billions can be involved in just one fight. Cleavage, to any grunt with half a brain cell, is a weak spot meant to be exploited by your guns or melee weapons. 40k is meant to be dark, brooding, there is no "light at the end of the tunnel." In short there is no hope for a better future. So, in reference to a love story, I'm not in for that. Love stories, in my honest opinion, have no place in the canon and thus should be left out. Keep that in the fan-fiction section.

I believe, however, they can be strong, commanding characters in the canon. Why not? I'm pretty sure a commissar, no matter their sex, would command the respect (and fear) of the troops simply by being a commissar.

**Mr Morden**

Yes and no - amazing how few character warriors wear helmets on the 40k battlefield ?

The 40K universe is not and never has been based on pure Vulcan logic

- its about having fun with death and darkness - you know what most of us as teenagers saw as cool, mix in massive amounts of violence, hints of sex and some comedy and enjoy.

Bare / exposed chests - well catchan's are fine with it as are a number of other "primitive" warriors and a number of the Xenos - Kroot and Orks usually disdain armour never mind extensive clothing. Dark Eldar and Servants of Chaos flash the flesh to taunt and tantalise............they are happy for you to look as in that moment they have ensared your soul, or slit yout throat - or both.

re love stories- you miss the point - love stories don’t have to end well or happily - give someone hope and something to give their all for and then at the end find that which they strived for was already crushed or worse totally false - that’s grim dark.

People say that to make the good shine you need evil but the reverse is also true, to make the darkness mean something there needs to be an element of light to be either maintained or snuffed out as a contrast - at least IMO.

This is used in a number of BL novels from older ones like Last Chancers to more recent ones like Wrath of Iron or Imperial Glory - there are love stories here - but Emperor they often end so badly..................

Love, be it sexual or not, can be a important element of the story if it’s handled well.

**Furyou Miko**

A Grimdark love story;

In Titanicus, Cally Samstag gets called up to fight in the PDF. She spends the entire book barely surviving, the only thing keeping her going in places is the fact she knows that if she just survives, she can go home and see her husband again.

When she finally makes it, she finds a letter in the door from the Arbites about her husband...

**Melissia**

Actually love stories can be some of the most grimdark stories you can come up with...

**mad_eddy_13**

Melissia wrote:
Actually love stories can be some of the most grimdark stories you can come up with...

Look a Romeo and Juliet

that's depressing by 40k standards.

**hotsauceman1**

Ok, I posted this in the Tau and rumors before coming here, so im sorry if i look like im angry about it. It is about Shadowsun.
In a book about Shadowsun, Quite possibly one of the strongest females in 40k her conflict is very stereotypical and very narrowminded.

Spoiler:

**kinratha**

Amaya wrote:
Furyou Miko wrote:
Burden of proof means that the person challenging the established information is responsible for proving their claim.

However, since I'm simply putting forward the established information (That a strike force of Crimson whatevers was wiped out by Sisters of Battle in an engagement large enough to be called a 'massacre'), the burden of proof actually lies with you.

Again you misuse words.

Events with less than twenty dead have been called massacres.

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

Multiple events with less than one hundred dead and a few with under fifty. Quantity of dead is not a variable in calling something a massacre. It is the complete domination of one force over another, typically involving the near complete destruction of the defeated force.

A Massacre is an incident where some group is killed by another, and the perpetrating party are perceived to be in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived to be helpless and/or innocent with regard to any legitimate offense. There is no clear-cut definition for when killings are referred to as massacres or not, rather, this choice is a result of an individual or collective assessment, depending e.g. on how the circumstances of the killing align with given ideas of acceptable use of force and on the desired status of an event in collective memory.

Massacre is thrown around a lot. Most of the time its used to the be sympathetic with the victims (exmp :Rosewood Massacre 8 killed ) or (Boston Massacre 5 killed) A real massacre (By definition) would be (Nanking Massacre/rape of Nanking 200,000 killed)

**Melissia**

Sadly, the "family or career" fallacy is still strongly in play in our society.

**Fezman**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, I posted this in the Tau and rumors before coming here, so im sorry if i look like im angry about it. It is about Shadowsun.
In a book about Shadowsun, Quite possibly one of the strongest females in 40k her conflict is very stereotypical and very narrowminded.

Spoiler:

She is in conflict about whether to become a mother, or continue her career. This becoming a mother isnt out of smething she wants to do, but something she thinks she NEEDS to do. Out of duty. Its very odd the entire time TBH. While it could be interchangeable between sexes, He concern isnt about being a female, but making she her familial line continues. But tht fact that she is female just makes it odd

On the one hand, it could just be a story about how someone who faces death every day feels responsibility to carry on their family line knowing they could die on their next mission.

On the other hand, though, in my opinion it's a bit facepalm-worthy that the book about the best-known Tau female character can't come up with a better internal conflict for her than whether or not to have kids. I wonder if a female writer would have looked at it differently? It wouldn't be impossible to write a similar story where the question of kids didn't come up - for example, what about a plot where Shadowsun realises she is the last of her line, becomes pretty disillusioned with a life of constant warfare and carnage, and is conflicted over whether to take on a new duty out of harm's way (moving higher up the chain of command or becoming a mentor at an academy or something - if Fire Warriors are allowed to leave to have kids I'm sure they must have desk jobs as well) or stay on the front lines where she feels it's her responsibility to lead her troops?

**Melissia**

Or, to be more realistic and less stupid, she could have the child AND serve, leaving the father to raise the child while she visits whenever she can.