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.

Sometimes at night I get an amazing dream where GW sudently jump on the band wagon that publick oppinion matters and will lead to bigger profits over time. After a while the new codexes are well balanced both internaly and externaly. The prices drop and the rule systems becomes less complicated. More stores start to field GW products, wich in turn leads to more boys starting to play the game.

Sudenly GW makes armies with non sexists female models and makes the warhammer universes be more sexual equal while still remaining awsome. Suddenly women and girls also start to play warhammer much more then they used to. Then they will lover prices and get even more gamers.

Playing the game becomes more fun because every list is a competetive list. People are more friendly instead of having the communaty split between competetive and casual players.

But then I wake up an understand that the produsers of warmachine or some other company will probably beat them to it and GW will disaoear as they sell the rights of after nobody buys their models.


***
Edit: The original post stoped here. after that this quickly turned into a debate about female models and female players. Since a lot of the arguments come very inconsistely on a forum I re posted my opinion on this in the first post for new readers of the thread:

Oh man so much burn because I would wish the game was better. Admitting that warhammer might have a problem does not mean that you should not enjoy your game.

I will try to adress what I mean better, although I doubt I will persuade the more aberant of you. I do however appreciate the discusion even if the remarks does not really have me convinced.

Warhammer is a game about empoverment. They present you as the commander of an empovered army witch you pich against another empovered army. All of this empowerment is for males only, all this enpowerment is only for males, no female empowerment is representet. I feel this is sexist and discrimenating.

The most representet women in this game is done through chaos daemons, dark eldar and sister of battles.

Demons does this through demonets. These are based upon the seductress, female who wield power through their ability to seduce men. This plays into clasic tropes that wimen need to offer sex for power and that their only power is through the medium of a man.

We have the dark eldar witch has a good range of female models in both the wytch and kabalite department. However, most of the wych model are female, the wytches provide entertainment. Most of the kabalite models are male, the kabalite provides mafia and politics. All of the wyches wear skimpy body suits. This is refreshing to see on the males, but when females do this it is just a re-representation of more skimpy clad models. Games Workshop seem to continue to do this, someone pointed out the pin up commissar earlier. Things like this is a problem when it is a pattern of sexulasation of women and a BIG amout of the female models in the game are doing this. Yes that is a problem.

And we have the sisters of battle. I feel I have already covered the skinny clad wimen in the section above. As for the regular sisters they are a mix up of clasic female tropes. We have the castice nun who will not foul themselves and be married and clean in the eyes of the good. A very submissive adetude. Of course then you mix this with the imadge of a female cult who seem to hate everyone. Sisters of battle generaly seem little apreciated by everyone. They are more pure then regular people, fanatic and general the queen bitch faction of the setting.

I do not think any of those other three have good representation of woman and are sexist. But where are the rest of the women?

Orks are all gender neutral. Yet all their names are "boyz" and they are always represented as super masculine and rugged.

Necrons are suposebly gender neutral? I supose there where female and male necrotyn originally? However they are all represented in the same way: Based of arnold swatchnegers masculine 80's icon Terminator.

Tyranids also makes no sence talking about gender, yet it does. The hyve tyrant is refered to as male for the most part. Harpy and Crone are both female names so this is good. However the borm queen is caled the dominatrix, again warhammer refering to females as sexist. Also we have a model that births babies. I would generaly not mind, but with the bad representation of females in the game it stand out as sore thumbs.

Space marines are super masculine and do not have females. I understand that it made sence when they where made to make them "male only" as there where diferent oppinions on gender at that time. It makes no sense to go back and change that since they are so defining of the setting. It would be bad for Gw to change them. ted234521 pointed out that discriminate males. I supose you are right on some part, but it is not really discriminating? A lot of people like them. They are a hyber bole of a fantasy warrrior. They are a big boy scouts club with insignias and macho adetude. And they are not the only represensation of males in the setting. I think tau, eldar and dark eldar have a lot more options for you to choose from. Females who play only have those same options.

Eldars have females. Yet very few models are female. Look through the model range. How many female farseers, aspect warriors or guardians can you see? If the eldars had as many female models as the dark eldar range things would be better. Eldars do not come as part of a culth of pleasure as default, this would be good.

The Tau and Kroot I do not know properly. I do think there are some Tau females? And the kroot seem the more gender neutral of the aliens.

I pointed out some induvidual models that where good, the inquisitor females and the tau model. Those are good.

As for human females? There are no female chaos cultists, it should be some of those. Why are there no females in the imperial guard? Ferros pointed out that the warhammer humans setting needs their women as birthing machines to make more and better soldiers. I do not think this is true. I also think this often represent attitudes that can be projected onto the people playing the game. It comes with the territory of the setting. (Not necessarily the people playing.)

Those where my opinion on how the female gender is representet within the setting. And while all of this can be defended within the fictional setting I do not think I can defend the setting if I was to justefy it to a female players. I work in a shop where we sell a lot of things, among the games workshop products. I always have trouble when girls ask me if I can help them find an army with female models in them.

Blacksails mentioned that he does not feel represented by the males in this setting. I find that hard to belive. He does not get a feeling of empowerment from having a good army? He does not think that any of the male models (most of them) are interesting characters? In any of the factions? They are over the top, but they are there.

Ferros I do not think your counter arguments are any good.

Spakadia what do you mean girls do not like violent video games? They do. Although girls a very badly represented in video games as well.

Bronzefist this is not killing GW. But I would think they would be better of if they did not write of 50% of the marked firsthand. If more women played GW more males would also come as it was no longer a "sausage party".

Opera you say I am sexist because I "Body-shaming a woman because she chooses to dress in a sexually-provocative manner". That would be sexist I agree. However, I am body-shaming a company that repetativaly print out representations of woman as one who must dress in a sexually-provocative manner. Caling them on that is not sexist, it is feminist. A femenist is for equal treatment of the gender. Also, all the sisters of battle wear this "boob armour". If anybody would make armour for wimen they would not make it like that. It incteases the chances of deying as opposed to just having a flatter chest. It makes no sence. It is there to enforce that these models have boobs.

Ferros also do not seem to understand what I mean when I say that the sisters of battle behave like men. They wear "poer armour", they have the same stat "BS4" "WS4" because they are though like space marines, but they are human "T3" "S3". The othe represensation of a woman in warhammer that does not take on the role of the seductres only gets tolerated becaused she acts like a boy. The boy here being the space marine. Sisters of battles play like space marines wane be with bolters, bs 4 and power armour. They do not go against the male norm in any way.

I did try to respond to some of the criticism you had on my opinion here. This subject is rather broad and you all seem to take pot shots at me so the awser became quite long. This of course I would tink lead to the "too long, did not read", but I am hopefull. I would like to get your oponion on this, but for the most part you seem to want to discredit my credabilaty and saying how nonsence this is instead of adressing my arguments. Am I that wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ted234521 wrote:

I am not seeing a gender diversity here. When it comes to computer games studies show that it is an even 50/50 division on the sexes. I know a lot of girls who play first peson shooters and horror games an other games that can be considered grimm and dark. Yet I know only two girls who used to play Gw some years ago.

Warhammer is doing it wrong.

Wow, first it was about sexism, and once that was shot down, suddenly you're all for gender diversity? You're like one of those goddamned 10 year old "Facebook activists" who know neither what or anything about the things they are "fighting for".

Girls don't like violent movies or video games for the most part. Clearly that makes them sexist, too!

And there you go. By applying your logic, someone managed to make you look like a complete idiot. Good job.



EDIT: You know, I'm being rather caustic here, and to be honest I don't care. What you're saying is completely wrong on so many levels and you simply fail to see it.

Ted: why do you edit your post so it seems to people reading it like I am saying that girls don't like violent movies or video games? I know first hand they do both from anecdotal evidence and from research statistics.When you first cite me, coment on it, and the cite somone I do not agree with and use the argument that I am an idiot you are putting words in my mouth. That is confusing to people and foul play.

GW has sexist female models?

Where?

 Psienesis wrote:
GW has sexist female models?

Where?

I don't think you know what sexist means...

There's nothing sexist about Sisters Repentia.

Sexist =/= scantily clad.

Well the fact that there are so few female models could be called sexist.

Psienesis I can never tell sarcasem over the internett as it requiers me to know your opinion on something before I read your responce. I will therefor asume you are not sarcastic. There are a few female models and a few of them sexist:

I would count the dark eldar wyches. Very skanky clothed with a lot of cleavage and revealing body suits. A disclaimer about them dresing that way for the areneas is not a good disclaimer.
Daemonets are mostly femae and are clasic seducteres. (The keeper of secrets is mostly a sexy androgynous so I can not count that. Still sex seems to be the main theme to desire.)
Other females in the setting are the death cult assassin models. (Clothing fetish going on there.)
The sisters of battle are abstinent, because they want to be just as though as the muscularly military boys. Being accepted because you act like a boy.
The only female tyranid is one who makes babies. (I supose the dominatrix is female as well? Stil not a very good name.)
The Eldar are OK, but of course the eldar Banshee are all female because we know how whiny the femaile shout can be.


A lot of what can be sead for the dark eldars can be sead for the dark elves in fantasy, or the odd female vampier. But fantasy is better since they have 2 factions that are neatral: Elves and wood elves are OK.


Why are there no more females in the 40k setting? Orks, necrons, tyranids are mostly gender neutral, yet they are all representet very masculine, instead if neutral. (Tyranids mentioned withstanding.)The imperial guard could shurly have mustered up some female soldiers? Look at israel, they have a lot of female soldiers. Norway have also some female soldies. As for fantasy why do not the ogres, warriors of chaos or beastmen have female models?

And for those of you who say Orks are based on rugby players and should stay masculine. That is not an argument of why there are no good females in the factions of 40K.


My personal favoret are of course the princes leya dark eldar models. They do not make sence in the setting, no dark eldar would fould themselves with human monkey girls. Why are they there? Because GW sucks at gender balance.

 Niiai wrote:


I would count the dark eldar wyches. Very skanky clothed with a lot of cleavage and revealing body suits.

Most Dark Eldar are wearing tight, form-fitting or dominatrix-style clothing. Not limited to females. Though in the case of characters like Lelith, she works in the arena. Her job is to entertain. Sexuality is entertaining - and also daring, to fight with no armor.

Daemonets are mostly femae and are clasic seducteres. (The keeper of secrets is mostly a sexy androgynous so I can not count that. Still sex seems to be the main theme to desire.)

DaemonETTES is a feminine. Moreso, they're based off the Succubus. A female demon who feeds of sexual energy. It has historical context.

Other females in the setting are the death cult assassin models. (Clothing fetish going on there.)

All imperial assassins wear form-fitting tight armor regardless of sex.

The sisters of battle are abstinent, because they want to be just as though as the muscularly military boys. Being accepted because you act like a boy.

So nuns are secretly yearning to be men too? Abstinence has been for a very long time, and across many cultures, a sign of spiritual purity. Has nothing to do with masculinity.

The only female tyranid is one who makes babies. (I supose the dominatrix is female as well? Stil not a very good name.)

The female gender is the one that births. This is basic biology. In fact, there is nothing to say the Tyranid is female other than that she births more Tyranids, so, you're kind of admitting my point there.

The Eldar are OK, but of course the eldar Banshee are all female because we know how whiny the femaile shout can be.

The Banshee is also based on historical myth. You're the one being petty and sexist by assuming it has to do with "whiny females".

Why are there no more females in the 40k setting? Orks, necrons, tyranids are mostly gender neutral, yet they are all representet very masculine, instead if neutral. (Tyranids mentioned withstanding.)The imperial guard could shurly have mustered up some female soldiers? Look at israel, they have a lot of female soldiers. Norway have also some female soldies.

Considering humanity's most importance (if least valuable) resource is its inexhaustible numbers, it's pretty important to keep the women birthing while the men go off and fight. Israel doesn't regularly kill planets of its own people.

And for those of you who say Orks are based on rugby players and should stay masculine. That is not an argument of why there are no good females in the factions of 40K.

Why would Orks have females? They don't reproduce sexually. No need for a vagina or mammaries. Pretty sure they don't have male genitals either (unless you've gone and read 1d4's more interesting pages).

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
GW has sexist female models?

Where?

Thats that 50 shades of Administratum Grey kind of sexy

Pretty sure that repentia on the right is a dude.

I don't see the sexism for Sisters of Battle. It's a universe at war, they want to fight for the emperor as much as Space Marines, and being abstinent keeps them in the fight rather than taking a leave from war to go have kids and take care of them for years.
Daemonettes are from the chaos god of excess, which is exactly why they're the way they are, because they serve the god of excess.
Tyranids: big scary aliens. You can't even tell which are male or female because no one knows what their reproductive organs look like
Wyches: For fitting clothes? yes, because they dart across the battlefield and need that form fitting clothing so it doesn't slow them down. Have you ever seen a gymnast doing acrobatics in baggy jeans and a sweatshirt?
Whiney? That's a sexist statement in itself. Eldar look fantastic and I would consider the most "gender neutral" race because even the guardians offer female heads on sprues.
Sorry, but I fail to see the argument towards the sexism.

GW just need to start caring about their customers a little bit more, they actually need to work on putting out much needed FAQs as well as playtesting army books and codex's before sending them out to the public full of errors that just won't be fixed for months or years later. Their stock dropped 24% today following their quarterly earnings report, this is a huge wakeup call for them so we'll see what is going to happen since it is likely to fall lower tomorrow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 namiel wrote:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
GW has sexist female models?

Where?

Thats that 50 shades of Administratum Grey kind of sexy

I just choked on my coffee, I applaud you sir

 Niiai wrote:
My personal favoret are of course the princes leya dark eldar models. They do not make sence in the setting, no dark eldar would fould themselves with human monkey girls. Why are they there? Because GW sucks at gender balance.

I have to disagree with you on Vect's slave girls. Dark Eldar claim trophies all the time, and having some living prisoners while you go on a raid could have a lot of psychological advantages both against the opposing army and in terms of "breaking" willful slaves. And Dark Eldar have... unique? tastes. Slumming with some Mon' keigh girls might be how some DE get their rocks off.

Regarding the models themselves, while the one with the beauty mark is a classic damsel in distress, the captured Sister of Battle is secretly picking the locks on her shackles--to me that stays true to the character of the faction she represents as well as imbuing her with some agency. Because when that lock is picked she is going to bring a few Dark Eldar down with her.

Generally, though, I agree that GW's model range is sorely lacking in female figures. A better example for your argument, Niiai might be the 1998 Games Day exclusive female Commissar. That figure is clearly a pin-up model pretending to be a Commissar.

 Psienesis wrote:
There's nothing sexist about Sisters Repentia.

Sexist =/= scantily clad.

I can agree with this. It'd be sexist if the Repentia were just like that for sex appeal, and were defined as sexual objects. But the Repentia actually have some pretty solid fluff behind why they look like that. They're not defined by their being scantily clad, but their being penitent relgious nutters.

 Niiai wrote:
The sisters of battle are abstinent, because they want to be just as though as the muscularly military boys. Being accepted because you act like a boy.

...What? So they'd be less sexist if they were less tough? Weaker than the men? And why is being tough and in the military have to be a male thing? That itself actually sounds rather sexist.

Besides, it's 40K, man! Everybody needs to be as tough as possibe to survive in this hellhole of a setting!

Well the fact that there are so few female models could be called sexist.

It can be, indeed, though it hasn't always been this way, and without a definitive reason for the absence from the studio, other than "lazy", it cannot be definitively proven.

However, from the fanbase, the more common reasons I hear for the lack are most certainly sexist, often being the "women can't be soldiers".

I would count the dark eldar wyches. Very skanky clothed with a lot of cleavage and revealing body suits. A disclaimer about them dresing that way for the areneas is not a good disclaimer.

Ah, so, because she is dressed "skanky", it's a sexist model? Do we know if the writing of the character suggests that she chooses to do so? Oh, she does? So she's a woman who makes her choice to dress as she does within her culture, and through her skills commands great power and respect?

That's not sexist.

Body-shaming a woman because she chooses to dress in a sexually-provocative manner, however, is.

It should also be noted that all Dark Eldar dress in tight armor. Their male soldiers are also body-gloved.

Daemonets are mostly femae and are clasic seducteres. (The keeper of secrets is mostly a sexy androgynous so I can not count that. Still sex seems to be the main theme to desire.)

They are female-like servants of the Chaos God of Pleasure, Vice and Perversion. The Keeper of Secrets is often modeled with a truly impressive (and nightmare-inducing) wang, because it, too, serves the Evil Sex God/dess. That Daemonettes are lusty, crab-clawed, kind-of-female-but-not-really is... not sexist, because, well, they're not people. They aren't intended to be people, and aren't representative of a social structure.

Other females in the setting are the death cult assassin models. (Clothing fetish going on there.)

As mentioned, all DCAs wear skintight bodygloves. The Vindicare Assassin and the Callidus Assassin are both male, and dressed in much the same outfit as the Moritat Reaper (the female) is.

The sisters of battle are abstinent, because they want to be just as though as the muscularly military boys. Being accepted because you act like a boy.

The Sisters of Battle are abstinent because they are a puritan, penitent order of religious zealots who believe that the purpose of life is to suffer.

You have a serious disconnect between the reasons for their abstinence and the purpose behind it. There's also nothing particularly masculine about being abstinent. I... really don't understand how you think having a religious order of warrior-women who have dedicated their entire lives (and, as well, their deaths) to serving the God-Emperor of Mankind is sexist.

The only female tyranid is one who makes babies. (I supose the dominatrix is female as well? Stil not a very good name.)

We don't have models for these things, or any art telling us what they look like. We actually don't know if these things have any female traits, other than that they lay eggs... or something. This might simply be human (in-universe and out) misunderstanding... for all we know, *all* Tyranid are female.

The Eldar are OK, but of course the eldar Banshee are all female because we know how whiny the femaile shout can be.

Not all Banshees are female, incidentally. Some "female" Eldar models are male Eldar playing a part in the pageant, and so are "cross-dressing".

... also, your comment about the female shout? Offensively sexist.

And for those of you who say Orks are based on rugby players and should stay masculine. That is not an argument of why there are no good females in the factions of 40K.

Orks have no gender. Not in 40K. They do in Fantasy though. You don't want to see that picture.

My personal favoret are of course the princes leya dark eldar models. They do not make sence in the setting, no dark eldar would fould themselves with human monkey girls. Why are they there? Because GW sucks at gender balance.

Did you mean Leia? Princess Leia? From Star Wars?

Dark Eldar take slaves. It's what they *do*. That they have 2 female slave models is slightly sexist, excepting that we know that DE don't take only female slaves. It might be a bit sexist on GW's part that they have not produced any male slave models, but that does not make the depictions of these two sexist in and of themselves.

It is noted that Commoragh is densely populated with a lot of Dark Eldar "half-breeds". I think we can see where the other half is coming from.

That you think DE would not have human slaves suggests to me you don't know much about the Dark Eldar.

As to the others... we have no idea what a female Necrontyr looked like. For all we know, half the named Necron characters are female, but the Imperium thinks they're male.

I will come back to this on a later note when I have less work to do, but I will point out your attack of me when I say the banshee having a whiny female voice.

The banshee is build upon the concept of the banshees vail. I human history, and I also belive in the fictinal eldar history the veil was to mark that someone would die. This sound was always high pitched.

In the rules this was often representet by the bashee pitching a high veil when they charge their oponent. This would then stunn them and netting the banshees inisiative 10.

In the fluff they make this sound by having a voice box that increase the sound tenfold. But it is still based on the eldars voice. A lot of eldar banshee are female in the fluff, and as we can see all of them are wearing female armour taking on the role of the banshee witch is how it is represented upon the battlefield. However an old female trope is that females have high whymi voices and are dumb. Like for instance that surfer girl, like from calerforniam that always end her sentence in a question? Also in when learning rhetoric it is ill adviced to talk fast as this makes you voice pitched. While a lot of female voices are piched higher then males geneticaly, we do not in the culture (at least most western culture) recodnise this with authoraty. A light femenine voice in considered bad in all serius settings.

So the basnhee model is building on a cluster of tropes. The trope of the banshee. The fact that most banshee are female. And the fact that they use their high pinched voice.

Unfortunatly in the real world the fact that females do not get taken seriusly becayse they do not speak "like men" is a problem. This is also the only aspect where there are more females then men I belive. Now while they are basing this aspect consept on an awsome myth, the myth of the banshee, they are still keeping live the trope of the high piched female voice as something un masculine that should be dreaded.

A concrete example of where this happens in real life is Margareth Tatcher who has to learn to speak like a man. A lot of poleticians, at least in Norway, are also copeing her maculine style when talking stil today.

Yeah, it's building on the historical representation of a banshee, which is female in history amd mythology. It's not sexism towards females as a whole, it's just how the mythos goes

 Niiai wrote:
I will come back to this on a later note when I have less work to do, but I will point out your attack of me when I say the banshee having a whiny female voice.

The banshee is build upon the concept of the banshees vail. I human history, and I also belive in the fictinal eldar history the veil was to mark that someone would die. This sound was always high pitched.

In the rules this was often representet by the bashee pitching a high veil when they charge their oponent. This would then stunn them and netting the banshees inisiative 10.

In the fluff they make this sound by having a voice box that increase the sound tenfold. But it is still based on the eldars voice. A lot of eldar banshee are female in the fluff, and as we can see all of them are wearing female armour taking on the role of the banshee witch is how it is represented upon the battlefield. However an old female trope is that females have high whymi voices and are dumb. Like for instance that surfer girl, like from calerforniam that always end her sentence in a question? Also in when learning rhetoric it is ill adviced to talk fast as this makes you voice pitched. While a lot of female voices are piched higher then males geneticaly, we do not in the culture (at least most western culture) recodnise this with authoraty. A light femenine voice in considered bad in all serius settings.

So the basnhee model is building on a cluster of tropes. The trope of the banshee. The fact that most banshee are female. And the fact that they use their high pinched voice.

Unfortunatly in the real world the fact that females do not get taken seriusly becayse they do not speak "like men" is a problem. This is also the only aspect where there are more females then men I belive. Now while they are basing this aspect consept on an awsome myth, the myth of the banshee, they are still keeping live the trope of the high piched female voice as something un masculine that should be dreaded.

A concrete example of where this happens in real life is Margareth Tatcher who has to learn to speak like a man. A lot of poleticians, at least in Norway, are also copeing her maculine style when talking stil today.

Dont Banshees use their psycic ability to inhance the crazy speakers on theri mask creating a scream that can hardly be heard except mentally?...

Dont eldar talk with mostly body gestures? Are you suggesting that eldar women have to dance like the men in order to be taken seriously in conversation? Because im fairly sure they hardly talk.

Seriously dude, you are looking into it way too much. Yes GW uses a lot of things for inspiration but i doubt the creation of the banshee went like this:

"Women have high pitched voices, People hate High pitched voices because men have deep voices, lets make an all (even though its mostly) women group who scream at their enemies until they give up because its what women do in real life, then lets make it dark and have it melt their brains a bit, then lets give them swords because they are bigger versions of kitchen knives..."

See how rediculious that sounds. They just based it on the myth and probably used women because the banshees are based on aerobics, something women can do very well (men can too but there are also male banshees) and put the two togther. You then got screaming acrobats that kill.

I doubt it has sexist origins like you are implying

Every list a competitive list!? Non existent- sexist GW models removed?! This is a day I hope never to see. GW lowering prices would be nice though

Some people need to find something more important to complain about.


like the Tyranid codex or NSA spying.

(Abstinence is sexism now? I had no idea.)

The banshee might be a bad example and it is indeed not the strongest play of evidence.

What I do see is that whenever you try to defend sexist models in the game you always come with an explanation from 1) within the fictional setting itself and 2) using that it has always been so in the setting as an argument.

1: Even though it is justified within the fictional culture does not place it outside of the real world the players occupy. If a female or male player find it sexist I think it would have a negative inn-pact upon the experience of the hobby.

2: I think you will find that most sexism can always be defended by the argument "it has always been so".

 Niiai wrote:
The banshee might be a bad example and it is indeed not the strongest play of evidence.

What I do see is that whenever you try to defend sexist models in the game you always come with an explanation from 1) within the fictional setting itself and 2) using that it has always been so in the setting as an argument.

1: Even though it is justified within the fictional culture does not place it outside of the real world the players occupy. If a female or male player find it sexist I think it would have a negative inn-pact upon the experience of the hobby.

2: I think you will find that most sexism can always be defended by the argument "it has always been so".

So models that our not currently considered sexist, or have never been considered sexist, should be banned because someone might think it is sexist?

Oh so GW has sexist FEMALE models? ....Please. Even if they do, have a look at a Space Marine. Go on, I dare you. What do you see? That's right, a 9 foot tall, SOLID MUSCLE, handsome/rugged, deep-voiced MANLY MAN. WITH A CHAINSAW. This is not "sexist"? Double standard, you have to remember it. By your definition, any romanticized character is sexist. SoB and SM aren't meant to be sexist, they are meant to be idealized, stylized people in a fantasy universe. No one likes it when the stars of the show are ugly, unless it is for a distinct purpose (i.e. the underdog, the brute archetype, etc.)

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
The banshee might be a bad example and it is indeed not the strongest play of evidence.

What I do see is that whenever you try to defend sexist models in the game you always come with an explanation from 1) within the fictional setting itself and 2) using that it has always been so in the setting as an argument.

1: Even though it is justified within the fictional culture does not place it outside of the real world the players occupy. If a female or male player find it sexist I think it would have a negative inn-pact upon the experience of the hobby.

2: I think you will find that most sexism can always be defended by the argument "it has always been so".

So models that our not currently considered sexist, or have never been considered sexist, should be banned because someone might think it is sexist?

What I find odd is that Niiai has included most, if not all, of the female models currently in production for 40k by GW (with the exception of some Inquisitors, I now realize). If the argument is that some models are sexist, then surely coming up with a counter example would help you show us what you mean? As while I recognize that yes, some of these models/units are the product of male designers, they are all within the realm of reason, and not exactly sexist. Not conservative, but not sexist.

BladeSwinga wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
The banshee might be a bad example and it is indeed not the strongest play of evidence.

What I do see is that whenever you try to defend sexist models in the game you always come with an explanation from 1) within the fictional setting itself and 2) using that it has always been so in the setting as an argument.

1: Even though it is justified within the fictional culture does not place it outside of the real world the players occupy. If a female or male player find it sexist I think it would have a negative inn-pact upon the experience of the hobby.

2: I think you will find that most sexism can always be defended by the argument "it has always been so".

So models that our not currently considered sexist, or have never been considered sexist, should be banned because someone might think it is sexist?

What I find odd is that Niiai has included most, if not all, of the female models currently in production for 40k by GW (with the exception of some Inquisitors, I now realize). If the argument is that some models are sexist, then surely coming up with a counter example would help you show us what you mean? As while I recognize that yes, some of these models/units are the product of male designers, they are all within the realm of reason, and not exactly sexist. Not conservative, but not sexist.

I mean some of the most obvious examples *COUGH* Demonettes *COUGH* are designed like that due to the symbolism 40k employs and not "sexist" per say.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

BladeSwinga wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
The banshee might be a bad example and it is indeed not the strongest play of evidence.

What I do see is that whenever you try to defend sexist models in the game you always come with an explanation from 1) within the fictional setting itself and 2) using that it has always been so in the setting as an argument.

1: Even though it is justified within the fictional culture does not place it outside of the real world the players occupy. If a female or male player find it sexist I think it would have a negative inn-pact upon the experience of the hobby.

2: I think you will find that most sexism can always be defended by the argument "it has always been so".

So models that our not currently considered sexist, or have never been considered sexist, should be banned because someone might think it is sexist?

What I find odd is that Niiai has included most, if not all, of the female models currently in production for 40k by GW (with the exception of some Inquisitors, I now realize). If the argument is that some models are sexist, then surely coming up with a counter example would help you show us what you mean? As while I recognize that yes, some of these models/units are the product of male designers, they are all within the realm of reason, and not exactly sexist. Not conservative, but not sexist.

I mean some of the most obvious examples *COUGH* Demonettes *COUGH* are designed like that due to the symbolism 40k employs and not "sexist" per say.

True, but looking at the Repentia, they could have been a bit more modestly covered up top, instead of having one boob only given a nip cover. I don't know SoB fluff too well, so there may be a reason for this lack of clothing there, but I understand that it has something to do with penance. However, I feel that if there was a male variant of the Repentia, that they'd be similarly clad.

BladeSwinga wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

BladeSwinga wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
The banshee might be a bad example and it is indeed not the strongest play of evidence.

What I do see is that whenever you try to defend sexist models in the game you always come with an explanation from 1) within the fictional setting itself and 2) using that it has always been so in the setting as an argument.

1: Even though it is justified within the fictional culture does not place it outside of the real world the players occupy. If a female or male player find it sexist I think it would have a negative inn-pact upon the experience of the hobby.

2: I think you will find that most sexism can always be defended by the argument "it has always been so".

So models that our not currently considered sexist, or have never been considered sexist, should be banned because someone might think it is sexist?

What I find odd is that Niiai has included most, if not all, of the female models currently in production for 40k by GW (with the exception of some Inquisitors, I now realize). If the argument is that some models are sexist, then surely coming up with a counter example would help you show us what you mean? As while I recognize that yes, some of these models/units are the product of male designers, they are all within the realm of reason, and not exactly sexist. Not conservative, but not sexist.

I mean some of the most obvious examples *COUGH* Demonettes *COUGH* are designed like that due to the symbolism 40k employs and not "sexist" per say.

True, but looking at the Repentia, they could have been a bit more modestly covered up top, instead of having one boob only given a nip cover. I don't know SoB fluff too well, so there may be a reason for this lack of clothing there, but I understand that it has something to do with penance. However, I feel that if there was a male variant of the Repentia, that they'd be similarly clad.

I will concede there, the repentia and DE slaves deserved to be buried in a pit and never spoken of again. The concept is good but poor execution.

 Niiai wrote:
What I do see is that whenever you try to defend sexist models in the game you always come with an explanation from 1) within the fictional setting itself

That's because, if it makes sense in context, it by definition, is not sexist, there is no blunter way of stating it. Taking the Banshee example for a moment, it is mentioned in the background that not all Banshees are female and that some are male, however they take on female personas and wear the female armour (which is form-fitting internally like all other aspect armour), because Banshees are based of a female godess from Eldar mythos, which makes Banshees the most inclusive unit in the game, because some of them aren't women they are (temporary) transsexuals.

 Troike wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
There's nothing sexist about Sisters Repentia.

Sexist =/= scantily clad.

I can agree with this. It'd be sexist if the Repentia were just like that for sex appeal, and were defined as sexual objects. But the Repentia actually have some pretty solid fluff behind why they look like that. They're not defined by their being scantily clad, but their being penitent relgious nutters.

 Niiai wrote:
The sisters of battle are abstinent, because they want to be just as though as the muscularly military boys. Being accepted because you act like a boy.

...What? So they'd be less sexist if they were less tough? Weaker than the men? And why is being tough and in the military have to be a male thing? That itself actually sounds rather sexist.

Besides, it's 40K, man! Everybody needs to be as tough as possibe to survive in this hellhole of a setting!

The Repentia miniatures are actually wearing a great deal MORE than Repentia in the fluff and art do.

Remember the Witch Hunters cover art? All that Repentia was wearing was a long scroll that was stitched onto her body.

And weirdly, while I was reading this thread, the episode "Birthright" of Stargate SG-1 just happened to be next up in the queue on Netflix. : /

It's about a group of female Jaffa rebels whose former Goa'uld overlord has banned female Jaffa in an incredibly short-sighted move that will surely result in a sharp decline in the number of soldiers he has available. And by "banned female Jaffa" I mean, "ordered all female Jaffa newborns to be killed henceforth."

Now THAT is sexist.

 Psienesis wrote:
Sexist =/= scantily clad.

Dead true.

OP is trying to find sexism where there is none, which will accomplish nothing other than to annoy other people.

This, however I will agree with:

 Icculus wrote:
Well the fact that there are so few female models could be called sexist.

There is a lack of female characters, which is a real shame. But calling Sisters of Battle and Dark Eldar (Really?) "sexist" is just making up your own problems.

Where's all the rage against the improper representation of males in the hobby?

I mean, how can I possibly live up to the standards set by a space marine!? Try as I may, but I don't think I'll ever be 7 feet and a few hundred pounds of rippling muscle mass.