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.

They don't use it because they don't think about it; and not thinking about it means your unconscious biases take over.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Because Games Workshop are incapable of imagining anything other than white males. Even the aliens are almost exclusively white and male.

Ignore it. 40k as a universe only works if you have your own interpretation of it, in which you can have as much diversity as you want.

Shadowsun is both female and blue, thank you very much.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Because Games Workshop are incapable of imagining anything other than white males. Even the aliens are almost exclusively white and male.

Ignore it. 40k as a universe only works if you have your own interpretation of it, in which you can have as much diversity as you want.

Salamanders and Tau are white?
It's more of a case of laziness than willful ignorance or bigotry, really.
When you have to paint 100 guardsmen on a deadline, changing the scheme every few models or so is a bit of a chore.

Yes, the coal-black mutants with burning red eyes but otherwise Caucasian features totally count as representation. As do Orks and Tau, because green and blue are not-white and therefore just like every other non-white colour, yes?

BladeTX wrote:Did you play dawn of war at all? Literally the first person you run into is a colored individual, an inquisitor to be exact, wielding a thunder hammer to help you fight the Eldar.

And yeah, my entire chapter, (Salamanders) are colored.

Tyranids... all white males he says..... hahahaha

Tyranids are not "people". They don't count. Also, Relic Games are not Games Workshop and their brilliance should not be attributed to Games Workshop.

CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Because Games Workshop are incapable of imagining anything other than white males. Even the aliens are almost exclusively white and male.

Ignore it. 40k as a universe only works if you have your own interpretation of it, in which you can have as much diversity as you want.

Really, Shadowsun, Sisters of Battle, Dark Eldar and Eldar, Tau, Salamanders?
You, sir, are an idiot and if I met you IRL I'd probably feel an urge to hit you.

I'd hit you right back. That's quite an extreme reaction, it makes you sound like you have Severe White Male Privilege Rage Syndrome. It's very common.

Two female characters does not count as equal representation, especially not when one of them is made for sex appeal. Also, Eldar are all white.

Iracundus wrote:
That said, GW went backwards IMO with the retcon of Salamanders from having black features in artwork (as in facial structure) to being literally pitch black but with Caucasian features. The other clear real world ethnic references I can think of offhand within the loyalist Imperium are the White Scars and the Attilans who are clearly a Mongol and Hun expy respectively. There are some Chaos references but that's another story.

Thank you. People need to realise that the Salamanders were clearly not changed out of fear of appearing racist when the White Scars exist, and people also need to realise that "coal-black mutants with burning red eyes" does not count as equal representation.

melkorthetonedeaf wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
There are black people. What you see on the table is not indicative of the background, especially as you can just paint them however you want.
Also, you should pick up the 4th ed rulebook. There is A black catachan guardsman.

Thank you.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Las wrote:
It's dumb. The lack of female and non-white representation is imo the big reason that most gamers are pasty white boys like me.

Lack of female representation eh?

Only got Dark Eldar, Tau, Craftworld Eldar, Sisters of Battle...

There are roughly twenty times as many male characters in the game as female characters, and the numbers don't get much more favorable even when you don't count those characters whose gender is inherently tied to their faction (Orks, Space Marines, Sisters of Battle). There are no female models for generic, non-gender-specific characters (e.g. Farseer). The Sisters of Battle are the most neglected army in the game (don't even try to counter that point with "but Squats!").

Once again I must say - the games feature excellent female characters (as well as a number of black men) because they were made by the excellent Relic Games, not GW. Relic have given us a number of female characters ranging from a Planetary Governor to a number of Farseers, as well as a black Librarian (in an otherwise white Chapter, thank you) and Inquisitor.

Can we please stop trying to imply that the existence of Shadowsun is enough to achieve adequate female representation? Doesn't anybody else realise how absurd that is?

Also, do I really need to put the word "almost" in mile-high burning text for you people?

Because they are mostly white men making a game that is primarily consumed by other white men. I don't think much about black people in my day to day life and I assume they don't either unless they are being directly affected by black people or white people who are acting offended on behalf of black people .

 Crimson wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Exactly. This topic comes up from time to time, and the answer is always "Games Workshop is a company full of pasty white British guys."

It is really not a valid reason.

What's "valid"? Your arbitrary set of personal values?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WellSpokenMan wrote: Also, a lot of people base their notions of what a woman in combat will look like in 38k years on what western female solidiers look like now. Particularly in the US, effort is currently made to hide female gender because it is percieved as a weekness.

Wat?

The US military makes no extra effort to hide femininity. Body armor is clunky and bought in bulk, with women representing less than 5% of personnel combat and direct combat support units so when the military was attempting to procure modern armor in large quantities in a short period of time, it wasn't cost effective to have two types. Has nothing to do with perception of weakness.

Wait, so you think that if women represented >50% of the armed forces you would find sexualised armour?... Wow, you're silly.

While the military does have a substantial insecurity/machismo problem, and I could probably write a few dissertations on that topic alone, I don't think sexualized armor is the ANSWER to that problem.

Form follows function, not the other way around, and modern body armor's function is to protect, not to show off the user's body.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
There are roughly twenty times as many male characters in the game as female characters, and the numbers don't get much more favorable even when you don't count those characters whose gender is inherently tied to their faction (Orks, Space Marines, Sisters of Battle). There are no female models for generic, non-gender-specific characters (e.g. Farseer). The Sisters of Battle are the most neglected army in the game (don't even try to counter that point with "but Squats!").

I wonder how that 20-1 ratio compares to the ratio of women as combatant troops in the history of the human race? Given that the vast majority of combatants in wars today and in history are men, it isn't surprising that GW's ratio of toy soldiers is heavily weighted towards men. I'd love to live in a world of greater equality, where 51% of all soldiers fighting in conflicts (and killed in them) are female, but historically that isn't the case.

Now, I realise this isn't a great excuse because the game is set in the future, and GW could do what they want. Look at Infinity, where units are regularly made up of an equal mix of male and female models. Brilliant. But Infinity is quite a hopeful, futuristic game, set in a progressive sci-fi world. 40k, by contrast, is a world set in a hideously repressive time when humanity has regressed socially to a level more akin to the middle ages. I wonder if the majority of worlds in the 41st Millennium are as progressive as the worlds of Infinity?

Still, they could certainly do more, and I think they should. They could certainly go down the route of saying 'humanity is so fethed EVERYONE has to fight' which, though still based on inequality, would work in-game. And they could make more of the factions that are more gender-equal, like your point about Farseers. Hell, this is a game for kids, and I certainly have problem with them reinforcing the message that 'men should be the fighters'.

But I can totally see why, in the fundamentalist religious, socially repressive far future of the 41st Millennium, gender roles are still going strong.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
What's "valid"? Your arbitrary set of personal values?

Well, that's what any moral judgement ultimately is. But, I do think that forgetting that people of other ethnicities exist does not give a terribly good impression of a person.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
But I can totally see why, in the fundamentalist religious, socially repressive far future of the 41st Millennium, gender roles are still going strong.

It'd be more grimdark if everyone was oppressed instead of just "oh the same people are oppressed today as they are in the future", but that idea seems to offend some people on this forum so meh, guess not everyone wants 40k to be grimdark

You mean they aren't? By the looks of it, if you follow anything but the Imperial Creed, you're dead.

 Melissia wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
But I can totally see why, in the fundamentalist religious, socially repressive far future of the 41st Millennium, gender roles are still going strong.

It'd be more grimdark if everyone was oppressed instead of just "oh the same people are oppressed today as they are in the future", but that idea seems to offend some people on this forum so meh, guess not everyone wants 40k to be grimdark

Not to mention the countless female ig characters in the fluff and the fact that nothing in the ig dex indicates that there are gender restrictions to the tithe.

 Las wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
But I can totally see why, in the fundamentalist religious, socially repressive far future of the 41st Millennium, gender roles are still going strong.

It'd be more grimdark if everyone was oppressed instead of just "oh the same people are oppressed today as they are in the future", but that idea seems to offend some people on this forum so meh, guess not everyone wants 40k to be grimdark

Not to mention the countless female ig characters in the fluff and the fact that nothing in the ig dex indicates that there are gender restrictions to the tithe.

Yeah, I agree that the tithe doesn't care about the gender. But it's the planets in question that actually recruit and train the regiments according to local custom.

The tithed regiments raised from 'Grimdark 1920s WW1 Planet', where all the men are conscripted and all the women make munitions, would be mostly male. The tithed regiments from 'High Tech Progressive Planet', where gender equality has been achieved and everyone votes Green Party, may well be 50/50. But there aren't many of those in the Imperium...!

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Exactly. This topic comes up from time to time, and the answer is always "Games Workshop is a company full of pasty white British guys."

It is really not a valid reason.

What's "valid"? Your arbitrary set of personal values?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WellSpokenMan wrote: Also, a lot of people base their notions of what a woman in combat will look like in 38k years on what western female solidiers look like now. Particularly in the US, effort is currently made to hide female gender because it is percieved as a weekness.

Wat?

The US military makes no extra effort to hide femininity. Body armor is clunky and bought in bulk, with women representing less than 5% of personnel combat and direct combat support units so when the military was attempting to procure modern armor in large quantities in a short period of time, it wasn't cost effective to have two types. Has nothing to do with perception of weakness.

A number of things in AR670-1 (which is the US Army's regualtion regarding uniforms) restrict what women are allowed to do in regards to uniform and hygene. If you honestly think that there is no male bias written into that, you are ridiculously naive. The wasn't just a perception of feminine weakness in the US Army, it was policy. Female soldiers had reduced physical standards, I assume they still do. You cannot honestly tell me that the Army sees women as equal when they give them a physical fitness handicap.

Starting with interceptor body armor, which was introdeced in the 90s, US military body armor is surprisingly snug, compared to the old flak vest it was a marjor improvement. However, that armor is designed for a flat male chest. The F-35 isn't cost effective. No considering the needs of 1 out of every 20 of your soldiers because of a manageable cost sounds like bad policy. Combat and Combat Support are all well and good, but I would like to think that by now we would have learned that, in warzone, sometimes combat comes to you. Being in a support role does not mean you will not be in combat.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
The tithed regiments raised from 'Grimdark 1920s WW1 Planet', where all the men are conscripted and all the women make munitions, would be mostly male. The tithed regiments from 'High Tech Progressive Planet', where gender equality has been achieved and everyone votes Green Party, may well be 50/50. But there aren't many of those in the Imperium...!

Tithed conscripts are just grabbed from their homes / off the street, in my mind. Just grab enough unskilled workers (laborers, housewifes, etc) to fill the quota and move on.

Claiming this is "progressive" is rather silly.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Las wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
But I can totally see why, in the fundamentalist religious, socially repressive far future of the 41st Millennium, gender roles are still going strong.

It'd be more grimdark if everyone was oppressed instead of just "oh the same people are oppressed today as they are in the future", but that idea seems to offend some people on this forum so meh, guess not everyone wants 40k to be grimdark

Not to mention the countless female ig characters in the fluff and the fact that nothing in the ig dex indicates that there are gender restrictions to the tithe.

Yeah, I agree that the tithe doesn't care about the gender. But it's the planets in question that actually recruit and train the regiments according to local custom.

The tithed regiments raised from 'Grimdark 1920s WW1 Planet', where all the men are conscripted and all the women make munitions, would be mostly male. The tithed regiments from 'High Tech Progressive Planet', where gender equality has been achieved and everyone votes Green Party, may well be 50/50. But there aren't many of those in the Imperium...!

Big generalization in regards to a galaxy spanning empire in a constant state of total war. Tons of industrialized states in our own history have proven themselves more than willing to conscript women. I'm sure there are many many cases like what you're describing, but I don't believe the models represent the precedent set by the fluff or military history.

Ethinic and Gender equality are solid economic policies. Since output is what matters, there is no reason to think that the Imperium would follow any other policy.

 Las wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
But I can totally see why, in the fundamentalist religious, socially repressive far future of the 41st Millennium, gender roles are still going strong.

It'd be more grimdark if everyone was oppressed instead of just "oh the same people are oppressed today as they are in the future", but that idea seems to offend some people on this forum so meh, guess not everyone wants 40k to be grimdark

Not to mention the countless female ig characters in the fluff and the fact that nothing in the ig dex indicates that there are gender restrictions to the tithe.

Especially Cadia, which probably does actually have a recruitment rate of something like 60/40 or maybe even 50/50.

I just wanted to point out a couple of things:
Generally speaking, most guardsmen and Space Marine models look just fine with a darker skin tone. The features are generic enough (especially with most of them being bald or wearing helmets) that they could be just about any race. Sculpting "black" heads isn't necessary. All it takes is a different paint job. I think anyone who's played Salamanders for a while could tell you this. Modelling women is much more difficult than modelling different races.

While the Imperium may be inspired by the (grim)dark ages, any large empire in the real world had a lot of genetic diversity (yes, including the Roman Empire, regardless of Hollywood depictions, they weren't all white). A huge, galaxy spanning empire would be that much more so.

As people have pointed out, other races (and women) show up much more frequently in the fluff than they do in the official artwork and models. I don't think this is due to deliberate racism. The GW boys are just a bunch of white, British nerds who, with a very few exceptions, draw and paint human characters to be gritty, idealized versions of themselves.

 Melissia wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
The tithed regiments raised from 'Grimdark 1920s WW1 Planet', where all the men are conscripted and all the women make munitions, would be mostly male. The tithed regiments from 'High Tech Progressive Planet', where gender equality has been achieved and everyone votes Green Party, may well be 50/50. But there aren't many of those in the Imperium...!

Tithed conscripts are just grabbed from their homes / off the street, in my mind. Just grab enough unskilled workers (laborers, housewifes, etc) to fill the quota and move on.

Claiming this is "progressive" is rather silly.

I've seen that in the fluff with regards to Navy press-ganging, but never in regards to PDF regiments (though I'm sure it happens somewhere in the Imperium!). The majority of instances I've seen in the fluff are of PDF regiments raised to the Guard, or special 'foundlings' of Guard regiments (say, Tanith), armed like their local PDF are.

And the 'progressive' related to worlds which, by today's standards, we might feel had more gender equality. The ones that are a bit like infinity rather than a bit like the middle ages.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I've seen that in the fluff with regards to Navy press-ganging, but never in regards to PDF regiments (though I'm sure it happens somewhere in the Imperium!). The majority of instances I've seen in the fluff are of PDF regiments raised to the Guard, or special 'foundlings' of Guard regiments (say, Tanith), armed like their local PDF are.

Most of the time it doesn't really say how they recruit, but I for conscripts I don't really see much of a point of doing any more effort than that. However, Cadia is the "standard" for the Imperial Guard, and their recruitment rate is equal in gender diversity, so I tend to think that most planets don't really see a reason to hold on to such nonsense like "women don't have the killing instinct" or other such garbage that some generals suggest in modern times.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
And the 'progressive' related to worlds which, by today's standards, we might feel had more gender equality.

That's a very bizarre and specific definition which I would fight you over, if I didn't think it would derail the conversation

http://www.bodyarmornews.com/tag/female-body-armor/

I'll leave this here, and add that with 3D printing tech, there is no reason to think that the one size fits all aproach to armor and uniforms is going to last.

Baggy and ill fitting clothing will not be a part of combat in the future. There would be no reason for it and it poses a risk to the wearer. In 40k terms, there would be a body scan when you finished training (not at the start, because the body changes), a servitor would make the necessary changes to your uniform and equipment and off you would go. Male or Female would not matter, just your measurements. It just so happens that male and female measurements tend to be different. This would not be done because it is sexy, but because it gives the wearer the greatest range of motion without have extra cloth that can snag.

You realize even with that, it's not the sexbot armor of sci-fi fantasies as imagined by the male writers, right?

The core concept of the Imperium in Warhammer is a variation of 'Medieval Europe in space'. It shares the basic demographics that the real life Medieval Europe did at that time period- a lot of white people.

It's similar to how I'd expect a setting that is Arabian culture themed to have a lot of Arabic looking people, and a setting based on Africa to have a lot of black people.

Not to say that there aren't black/whatever ethnicity figures in Warhammer 40k. A decent minority of the characters are, and you're free to paint your figures however you want. I'm personally a bit more perturbed about a lack of female options. Something like an upgrade sprue with a bunch of female heads would be nice.

 Melissia wrote:
You realize even with that, it's not the sexbot armor of sci-fi fantasies as imagined by the male writers, right?

No, there will never be functional lift and seperate boob plate armor. Uniforms will probably look similar to the clothing olympic skiers or speed skaters wear, for both men and women. Provided there isn't some future outbreak of Victorian values. Since nobody has cracked the code for making body armor for the female upper torso yet, I don't have know what that will look like, but it will be different than what men wear. My guess is that it will consist of two plates, one for the top of the breasts and one running from the bottom of the breast down to the waist. That's just conjecture though.

As for Sisters of Battle and Female IG, GW has plenty of room to maneuver. Beefcake Catachans and Blood Angels nipple armor allow them to take it pervy enough to satisfy the sexbot fans without exposing themselves too much to the burka fans. They'd be fine as long as they don't take it too far. GW however,seems to be very afraid that any feminine plastic models will bring the entire IP down. All I ask for is that I can tell they are female at a reasonable distance and that they don't have high heeled combat boots.

I think it's less fear that it will bring the entire IP down and more "I know it'll make me money, but I don't wanna, I just wanna make more chiseled abs and screaming bald dudes!"

No one, I repeat, no one is being sexually stimulated by the catachan range.

Since nobody has cracked the code for making body armor for the female upper torso yet, I don't have know what that will look like, but it will be different than what men wear. My guess is that it will consist of two plates, one for the top of the breasts and one running from the bottom of the breast down to the waist. That's just conjecture though.

Ehm... what? The US Army is doing just that, designing combat armor for female soldiers, because the "one size fits most" of the then-current line of armor was found to be both insufficient and tactically-compromising.

 Las wrote:
No one, I repeat, no one is being sexually stimulated by the catachan range.

Someone somewhere is sexually stimulated by the Catachan range, I guarantee it. Rule 34 and all that.

A certain level a cheescake will increase sales. Shirtless soldiers with a 5+ armor save and Space Marines with biological features on their armor are going to help GW justify whatever kind of plastics they cook up. I am not saying that anything is right or wrong here. Just what I think people will say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:

Since nobody has cracked the code for making body armor for the female upper torso yet, I don't have know what that will look like, but it will be different than what men wear. My guess is that it will consist of two plates, one for the top of the breasts and one running from the bottom of the breast down to the waist. That's just conjecture though.

Ehm... what? The US Army is doing just that, designing combat armor for female soldiers, because the "one size fits most" of the then-current line of armor was found to be both insufficient and tactically-compromising.

They are making an effort now, but nothing, except a "vision of the future", has been released yet. At least according to the article I posted above. If there is something else going on, I found nothing about it during a quick search. It's a challenging problem. The materials that modern body armor is made of don't lend themselves very well to curves. I'm curious to see what companies come up with. If the Army has something else going, other than the program mentioned above, please post a pic or a link.

SGTPozy wrote:
Wait, so you think that if women represented >50% of the armed forces you would find sexualised armour?... Wow, you're silly.

I'd suggest you're probably fairly silly if that's what you took away from my comment, lol.

I can't even fathom the thought processes that led you there and I'm fairly certain I'd hurt myself trying to duplicate them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
What's "valid"? Your arbitrary set of personal values?

Well, that's what any moral judgement ultimately is. But, I do think that forgetting that people of other ethnicities exist does not give a terribly good impression of a person.

Neither does judging people the way you're doing.