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.

3dog wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
or the one where jihad succeded and all white people are dead.

You do realize that the aim of Jihad is arguably about killing non-Muslims, but has never, ever, even in your wilder fantasies, been about killing white peoples?

Sorry to hijack your post for this but I've already blocked the offending poster because... Are you kidding me? As a white Muslim that is possibly the most mind numbingly wrong thing I've ever read.
First, jihad means struggle. Usually the struggle to be a better Muslim against your more base desires. It can also cover defending yourself & the faith from people trying to persecute/kill you for your beliefs.
Second, people like these unislamic state only aim to kill or convert the entirety of the كفر so even the worst people to insult الله by using his name aren't pushing for anything like what you think they are. سلام.

Ok Im not sure if blocked means you have me on ignore but Id like to adress this. First, Im perfecly aware what jihad means and that it's being misused, just like anti semitic doesnt make sense in the context it is used now for example. Using it as a holy war equivalent would hardly be my fault though given the constant tv brainwashing, especialy that I watched the news when posting and guess what, they couldnt shut up about 'jihadist' killing people including kids. Then, even if Im not yet brainwashed by the demonisation of muslim, Id still adopt the warped term just for the sake of mainly drunken conversation with people in pubs just because it makes communication faster. You can be aware of things but still find it hard to escape from them.

Now onto white muslims. When I proposed a game where "jihad succeded and all white people are dead" I actualy wanted to add "except a few converted" but didnt, my posts suffer because I try to finish asap to save myself the eyestrain. That ofc would still be a crap use of the term but please take into account that I was in the middle of posting about a cool racist mysogynic white supermacist 40k and posted about a potential cool wiped out by jihad brown people universe in the same playful trollful tone.

I apologise ofc. I dont actualy want to offend anyone (too much) but I want freedom of speech and talk plus Im a troll by nature so it's not easy heh.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Ashiraya I thought you know, helmetless, heavier jaws but still womanly features, long hair in the wind or sth else to show they are women still.

Long hair? Have you seen how the SM helmet looks like? Only idiots or space wolves (who said “It is the same”?) would wear long hair! Bald/shaved women would make much more sense. And certainly would not destroy the aesthetics like shiny long hairs and shiny eyes and b&b pose would.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I think that actual mysogyny would fit the Imperium

Even though that it has been made abundantly clear in the fluff that this can vary from planet to planet, but at the highest level of the Imperium, there is none? Explicitly none, with women being High Lords? The only position on the Imperium that is too high for a woman to reach is God-Emperor of Humanity, because there is only one guy with this title and he never died.

Ok how many of these lordesses are there, where is she pictured and where is that fine bit of fluff? Dont forget that Im ignorant.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I also dont want people with pc like vision to impose theirs.

Well, I really, really do not care that you do not want me to do

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Ok how many of these lordesses are there, where is she pictured and where is that fine bit of fluff?

Pictured or described? Pictures of High Lord are pretty rare. And very few are named. For instance, we know the identity of a grand total of one (1) Master of the Administratum, which is the most influential High Lord. There are no Inquisitorial Representative named at all on Lexicanicum, but the Inquisition has a fair share of women, and always had. We have 0 Grand Provost Marshal named either, but we do have fluff, models and art of women in the arbites.

But the Abbess is always a woman and usually she is a High Lord. And that was already the case back in 2nd edition.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Just be white supermacist like a proper European

No.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Well you could make a case for Adolf

Uh? What? Which building are you even talking about?

Plumbumbarum wrote:
every Tyrant in Rome and every tyrant medieval king.

Calling them dictators is a complete anachronism. And 40k's architecture certainly does not look like anything from Ancient Rome .

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Indian people are not cool though.

Are you suggesting the people that brought use elephant-headed gods and Kali are not cool? Are you?

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
I remember seeing a few black guardsman in the old catachan codex. At the time I thought, why are there not more black character? Not too shabby for a 10 year old!

I was thinking the same thing at the time and then painting around 5-6 of my own guardsmen black. I also remember my dad telling me to tone it down a bit! Think thought I was gonna paint my entire army as if they were black!

Also remember seeing a completely black army painted by a white player at warhammer world a few years ago..... which seemed weird in my head but whatever!

It's not really important in terms of how players themselves paint their figures, but would be nice to see more in the official fluff. If this was fantasy though there wouldn't be much of an issue.

Just out of curiosity why did your dad want you to "tone down" the number of black miniatures in your army?

That's way more confusing than a white player with a primarily black army.

Ohh he thought someone might think I was being racist or something....

yeahh I know... gotta love the white middle class political correctness police

How is having a model painted with dark skin tones racist?

no idea.... think he was worried someone would get the wrong impression....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
every Tyrant in Rome and every tyrant medieval king.

Calling them dictators is a complete anachronism. And 40k's architecture certainly does not look like anything from Ancient Rome

Well gothic is based on roman architecture and the imperium is basically a gothic late christian roman empire on steroids!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
The need for Babies?

Who cares about babies? There are already way too many of them for the hive city to feed them all, and future ability to make babies doesn't really help you very much if the Tyranids eat your entire planet. And really, sacrificing the future for a desperate hope of gaining a few more minutes of miserable existence is the fundamental theme of the Imperium.

If you look at most of the main regiments planets, they've all been devastated at one point and another with most becoming pretty much their sole tithe. Also with the billions upon billions of troops in need of supply and equipment to be produced it would b a quite high annoyance logistical, in modern militaries it's a minor issue, but you very rarely get standing armies in the million in recent history.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Also who says sexism isn't rife in the 40k universe?

The lack of explicit sexism in the fluff?

Maybe, but the paranoid religious tone doesn't explicitly deny it either.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Also the separation of labour using gender is incredibly common and logical thing

It isn't really, at least not to the agree that it exists in the real world.

In the modern world, and we can all clearly see that the imperium is most defiantly not built on modern society. Looking at the society the imperium is based on it defiantly is sexist. Now the sheer size of the imperium would mean notable exceptions, wouldn't be surprised if there where whole female regiments, mostly due to changed socialisation on previously separated worlds, but since when has the imperium even been tolerant of those who are different?

nudibranch wrote:
(Also, there are more than two genders, by the by)

When it comes to body parts, there really aren't, despite what people try to tell you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Lack of defining female cues means it's a male until proven otherwise.

And that's the problem! Assuming that every character is male until proven otherwise is incredibly sexist. Yes, it's also incredibly common, but that doesn't mean that we should approve of it.

How is that a problem or sexist? Assuming someone is white isn't racist, it's self-identifying in place of concrete cues. Would you rather have women portrayed as the expendable gender?

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Well gothic is based on roman architecture and the imperium is basically a gothic late christian roman empire on steroids!

40k architecture does not look like that :

lustigjh wrote:
Would you rather have women portrayed as the expendable gender?

I am pretty sure we would both (i.e. Peregrine and me) have both gender treated equally, with people being expendable or not based on other concern than their genders.

I think we have lost the main point of the debate and this is going nowhere. I read pretty much every page of this thread and still I can't understand what the main antagonist are talking about.

I guess everybody agrees to say that GW designers' background has consequencies on the fluff and they are apparently not very wary of representation. So, frankly, why are you still arguing? Please explain!

lustigjh wrote:

nudibranch wrote:
(Also, there are more than two genders, by the by)

When it comes to body parts, there really aren't, despite what people try to tell you.

You are confusing gender with sex. Sex is the physical difference, gender is something entirely different.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Ashiraya I thought you know, helmetless, heavier jaws but still womanly features, long hair in the wind or sth else to show they are women still.

Long hair? Have you seen how the SM helmet looks like? Only idiots or space wolves (who said “It is the same”?) would wear long hair! Bald/shaved women would make much more sense. And certainly would not destroy the aesthetics like shiny long hairs and shiny eyes and b&b pose would.

Given how much your skeleton is messed with when you become a Space Marine as well, your jaw would basically have more in common with a battering ram than Miss Universe's chin either way.

 RazgrizOne wrote:
I think we have lost the main point of the debate and this is going nowhere. I read pretty much every page of this thread and still I can't understand what the main antagonist are talking about.

I guess everybody agrees to say that GW designers' background has consequencies on the fluff and they are apparently not very wary of representation. So, frankly, why are you still arguing? Please explain!

Because they are bored on the internet? I've long since stopped 'debating' online as it is as futile as trying to kick water uphill.

The only TL;DR you can get from this thread is. 'This fictional setting & limited model range doesn't cater to my ethical principles'

Plumbumbarum wrote:
That would be personal preference if it wasnt also what GW portrays, artwork is also the way to define the settings.

Except it isn't, as I've demonstrated. Female guardsmen exist in the setting even if they aren't in the plastic Cadian or Catachan kits. And I've provided artwork of those female guardsmen, so even your absurd "only the part of the fluff that supports my opinion counts" position still fails.

A picture of a Space Marine doesnt show exactly dystopian but it shows a lot.

No, it shows absolutely nothing. Take away the rest of the fluff and that space marine is just another generic Starship Troopers ripoff. The only reason we know that the space marine is an insane religious zealot dedicated to slaughtering the enemies of his dystopian society is the fluff.

@Peregrine
Ugh Im not really sure if I properly put it into words. In other words, million of guardswomen in the books, none on the art in the codex now, art takes precedence.

By this standard the IG consists almost entirely of Cadians and Catachans, because those plastic kits are what GW uses for the codex pictures. Do you see a problem with this?

Also, if art takes precedence, I gave you art of female guardsmen.

Male not part of monk, knight reference, I kind of lost you there. I really feel like I hit some language barrier this time.

It's not required because it's a reference, not a literal copy. A "knight" is a warrior with heavy armor, a code of honor involving noble combat and duty to god and king, etc. The fact that real-world knights were male doesn't mean that I can't immediately recognize a knight when I see a woman in shining plate armor carrying a shield with a cross on it.

The only TL;DR you can get from this thread is. 'This fictional setting & limited model range doesn't cater to my ethical principles'

True. I think we can admit debate is over when you start to see Coliseum pictures popping out in the middle of the thread.
I don't say this debate is useless though ; it was even really interesting. But after so much discussion, positions are too polarized and nobody really wants to reach a consensus which is, IMO, "40k is not racist but don't try to ignore that it was made by white males for white males".

Maybe we should save our rhetoric for the moment when outsiders like overenthusiastic gender/equality militants will really target the Hobby. Shall the Emprah forbid that it should be.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Well gothic is based on roman architecture and the imperium is basically a gothic late christian roman empire on steroids!

40k architecture does not look like that :
*snip*

 RazgrizOne wrote:


Maybe we should save our rhetoric for the moment when outsiders like overenthusiastic gender/equality militants will really target the Hobby. Shall the Emprah forbid that it should be.

Even the Ruinous Powers would fear that day.

I play Infinity & there is such a wide range of models to choice from, plenty of females, different ethnic races, robots & Aliens. If people are looking for a game to expresses their views then they couldn't do better.

I just don't see the point of getting all worked up over a 25+ year old game set in a Distopenty nightmare.

 RazgrizOne wrote:
Maybe we should save our rhetoric for the moment when outsiders like overenthusiastic gender/equality militants will really target the Hobby. Shall the Emprah forbid that it should be.

Not going to happen. Why would outsiders care?
See below.

 Nakor The BlueRider wrote:
I just don't see the point of getting all worked up over a 25+ year old game set in a Distopenty nightmare.

If you have already invested hundreds if not thousands of euro in it, along with long hours of modeling, seems pretty normal to be a bit worked up about the game, no?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 RazgrizOne wrote:
Maybe we should save our rhetoric for the moment when outsiders like overenthusiastic gender/equality militants will really target the Hobby. Shall the Emprah forbid that it should be.

Not going to happen. Why would outsiders care?

Ever heard of Anita Sarkeesian?

Hoo boy.

Not going to happen. Why would outsiders care?
See below.

Seems like you don't know how far that kind of stuff can goes. I'd like to be as sure as you it will never happen.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
@Mustela I love to discuss general themes of 40k but discussing actual genetics is taking it too far. 40k is not star trek, it doesnt even pretend to make much sense in a way of details. Ofc it has to have enough internal logic to not completly crumble but any realism discussion ends at orks imo. As I per above it's imo more about impressions than explanations. About strong visual messages that are crudely glued together by fluff later. Btw this paragraph should be last but Im not writing it again, dont want to go insane.

I agree that's why I didn't bring it up before. However, talking about impressions rather than the empirical is a far more futile pursuit. It seems to me that you're saying the IoM should be misogynistic and racist. Why should it be that way? Because that's the impression you got? That's not the impression I got. The impression I got was that the IoM is an effectively infinite organization that has largely bypassed those issues with a dogma of general human supremacy.

You seem to argue that people getting that impression imposes some sort of wrongheaded world view on others and censors GW, which is quite frankly absurd.

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Some animals are more equal than others

I also dont want people with pc like vision to impose theirs.

What do these three have in common? They all use incorrect use of language to create a circular logic loop.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Ok how many of these lordesses are there, where is she pictured and where is that fine bit of fluff?

Pictured or described? Pictures of High Lord are pretty rare. And very few are named. For instance, we know the identity of a grand total of one (1) Master of the Administratum, which is the most influential High Lord. There are no Inquisitorial Representative named at all on Lexicanicum, but the Inquisition has a fair share of women, and always had. We have 0 Grand Provost Marshal named either, but we do have fluff, models and art of women in the arbites.

But the Abbess is always a woman and usually she is a High Lord. And that was already the case back in 2nd edition.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Just be white supermacist like a proper European

No.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Well you could make a case for Adolf

Uh? What? Which building are you even talking about?

Plumbumbarum wrote:
every Tyrant in Rome and every tyrant medieval king.

Calling them dictators is a complete anachronism. And 40k's architecture certainly does not look like anything from Ancient Rome .

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Indian people are not cool though.

Are you suggesting the people that brought use elephant-headed gods and Kali are not cool? Are you?

Can you tell the difference between Roman inspired and straight Roman building? 40k is a pot of references.

Dictator is an anachronism when used in context of Rome? To think you called me ignorant.

Also I never put people on ignore but I dont really want to discuss with you anymore. It's not the first time you quote me in a way that my words look bad, cant say intentional or not but it gets annoying. Trying humour with you doesnt work either (at least my humour) so let's just call it a draw and give it a rest.

If your words continually look bad when quoted back to you, it might just be that your words are bad...

Personally the Imperium is too much into the survival of mankind to care what bits you have between your legs. It is obviously a vast entity with a huge range of cultures, many of which will be highly sexist or racist, but many will not be. The Imperium itself only needs your loyalty, service and faith.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Can you tell the difference between Roman inspired and straight Roman building? 40k is a pot of references.

I see. So a female soldier wearing Roman-style armor and carrying Roman-style weapons is just too different to be a reference to Roman soldiers (as you stated earlier), but you can still understand that a 40k building that vaguely resembles a Roman one is a reference to Roman architecture? It's amazing how your ability to understand and appreciate a reference varies so much depending on how it aligns with your other beliefs.

 Peregrine wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
That would be personal preference if it wasnt also what GW portrays, artwork is also the way to define the settings.

Except it isn't, as I've demonstrated. Female guardsmen exist in the setting even if they aren't in the plastic Cadian or Catachan kits. And I've provided artwork of those female guardsmen, so even your absurd "only the part of the fluff that supports my opinion counts" position still fails.

A picture of a Space Marine doesnt show exactly dystopian but it shows a lot.

No, it shows absolutely nothing. Take away the rest of the fluff and that space marine is just another generic Starship Troopers ripoff. The only reason we know that the space marine is an insane religious zealot dedicated to slaughtering the enemies of his dystopian society is the fluff.

@Peregrine
Ugh Im not really sure if I properly put it into words. In other words, million of guardswomen in the books, none on the art in the codex now, art takes precedence.

By this standard the IG consists almost entirely of Cadians and Catachans, because those plastic kits are what GW uses for the codex pictures. Do you see a problem with this?

Also, if art takes precedence, I gave you art of female guardsmen.

Male not part of monk, knight reference, I kind of lost you there. I really feel like I hit some language barrier this time.

It's not required because it's a reference, not a literal copy. A "knight" is a warrior with heavy armor, a code of honor involving noble combat and duty to god and king, etc. The fact that real-world knights were male doesn't mean that I can't immediately recognize a knight when I see a woman in shining plate armor carrying a shield with a cross on it.

You could choose a few 40k space marines pictures and tell that story without writing a word. Your fluff is rarely a single sentence either.

About Cadians and Catachans, not really. Even Vostroyans have art and if GW wants Cadians to be main force in IG, then maybe they do heh.

Female guardsmen you posted are from licensed sources, I take GW over them when it comes to 40k vision. If you take everything in like books then there's no fluff either because it's contradicting left and right. Also Dark Heresy for example is imo an abomination art wise and kills 40k mood for me instead of putting me in. And I tried believe me.

Ofc reference is not a copy. That you can recognise it doesnt mean that it's not ridiculous. Women knights or monks are ridiculous enough to kill the reference dead. You could smuggle some Jeanne d'Arc esque general but on massive scale it would reek of parody or at least look artificial and forced. .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If your words continually look bad when quoted back to you, it might just be that your words are bad...

Personally the Imperium is too much into the survival of mankind to care what bits you have between your legs. It is obviously a vast entity with a huge range of cultures, many of which will be highly sexist or racist, but many will not be. The Imperium itself only needs your loyalty, service and faith.

Maybe someone quotes it out of context. I was about my Indian people comment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Can you tell the difference between Roman inspired and straight Roman building? 40k is a pot of references.

I see. So a female soldier wearing Roman-style armor and carrying Roman-style weapons is just too different to be a reference to Roman soldiers (as you stated earlier), but you can still understand that a 40k building that vaguely resembles a Roman one is a reference to Roman architecture? It's amazing how your ability to understand and appreciate a reference varies so much depending on how it aligns with your other beliefs.

Not really no. The equivalent of woman legionaire would be putting curtains with flower patterns on said building.

False equivalence. Flower-pattern curtains are obviously out of theme with the dark themes of 40k. Are women?

Mustela wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
@Mustela I love to discuss general themes of 40k but discussing actual genetics is taking it too far. 40k is not star trek, it doesnt even pretend to make much sense in a way of details. Ofc it has to have enough internal logic to not completly crumble but any realism discussion ends at orks imo. As I per above it's imo more about impressions than explanations. About strong visual messages that are crudely glued together by fluff later. Btw this paragraph should be last but Im not writing it again, dont want to go insane.

I agree that's why I didn't bring it up before. However, talking about impressions rather than the empirical is a far more futile pursuit. It seems to me that you're saying the IoM should be misogynistic and racist. Why should it be that way? Because that's the impression you got? That's not the impression I got. The impression I got was that the IoM is an effectively infinite organization that has largely bypassed those issues with a dogma of general human supremacy.

You seem to argue that people getting that impression imposes some sort of wrongheaded world view on others and censors GW, which is quite frankly absurd.

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Some animals are more equal than others

I also dont want people with pc like vision to impose theirs.

What do these three have in common? They all use incorrect use of language to create a circular logic loop.

Ok I'll try to answer the "it seems to me that you say that IoM should be mysogynic and racist" part. Let's make it a dialog.

Let's start with the fact that I think 40k is not racist and never was racist. On the contrary actualy, it was made by punkish nerds in times were every punk was obligatory anti Thatcher and if I was to define it politicaly it would be some leftist grimdark parody on church, racism and facism that got dulled over the years because of its commercial succes. It's not mysogynist either though it kind of fits a criteria by puting an odd female like a cop out heh.

Now, the dialog:

Crazy pc person from USA: GW has a racist problem.

Plumbumbarum: Well that would actualy be great because the setting is extreme and offensive and it would fit the IoM making impression of bad people.

Crazy feminist person from USA: Not enough women. Sexism.

Plumbumbarum: Well too much women. Id love if there was a mysogynist problem there just like history and stuff.


So, those are mainly counter arguments to the 'equality' or 'pc' or 'diversity' brigade or whatever the word, let it be middle class corectness police heh I loved that. I find it ridiculous that you would take offense from a space fantasy settings that was in fact mocking the racist ideas not praising them and would try to change it or bash it for not fitting your sensibilities. As said, 40k offends me too but Im not taking it to the forums because those things are part of what defines the setting and removing them would kill part of 40k character too.

It's funny btw. Judge Dredd was for example a parody for Thatcher extremism but it seems people took him at face value and love him for the exact feats that were meant to be glaring issues. It also seems that something being a facist opresive empire doesnt stop people from considering it a coolest thing ever. People heh.

In fact arguments can be made both sides and you can find explanations for racial diversity in IoM just because 40k is a mess of references, ripoffs and fluff bits. Still GW seems to keep to the medieval vibe, or empire wfb from fantasy vibe and stick to white bald men and it works imo, with the alternative having that characterless, suited for target audience yet another diverse USA in space vibe. Not to mention that if you want to play black space marines, there are salamanders and for Asians there are white scars so it's not even straight racist or sth.

I have a feeling that I didnt really explain myself any better heh. Anyway make the crazy leftist around drop the whining and I'll drop crazy bigot stuff as well. 40k is fine as it is.

Disclaimer: the usage of a word crazy is not meant to be offensive, I dont mean any particular person and Im not suggesting any of my disputants as having a serious mental health condition or that his/her opinions have no basis in reality. I am myself an insane person and consider it as one of my upsides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
False equivalence. Flower-pattern curtains are obviously out of theme with the dark themes of 40k. Are women?

False logical fallacy call. Women are obviously out of theme with medieval knights monks and Roman legionaires.

Fortunately, 40k is only inspired by those two, not a direct rip-off.

Assault rifles are also out of theme with medieval knights monks and roman legionnaires, but it's apparently entirely thematic for your knights to ride in tanks and throw grenades.

40k only takes some elements from such sources.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
About Cadians and Catachans, not really. Even Vostroyans have art and if GW wants Cadians to be main force in IG, then maybe they do heh.

Have you actually looked at the current IG codex? Almost all of the fluff/art is Cadians and Catachans, and virtually all of the photographs are those armies. Their presence in codex art is massively disproportionate to their numbers in the fluff.

Female guardsmen you posted are from licensed sources, I take GW over them when it comes to 40k vision.

Why? GW has no such policy. Why is your personal opinion about what is canon more important than the actual owners and creators of the setting?

Women knights or monks are ridiculous enough to kill the reference dead. You could smuggle some Jeanne d'Arc esque general but on massive scale it would reek of parody or at least look artificial and forced.

Are you serious? You can't possibly believe something this absurd.

Not really no. The equivalent of woman legionaire would be putting curtains with flower patterns on said building.

...

So your response is sexist stereotypes and ignoring the point of my example?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Women are obviously out of theme with medieval knights monks and Roman legionaires.

So are bolters and power armor and chainsaw swords, but that doesn't stop you (and everyone else) from recognizing the obvious references to Roman soldiers in the Ultramarines.

When I made Grandmaster Mordrak I wanted to make him a black guy. For some reason I could never get the skin tone right, and it always looked like I was painting a guy with black face. Disappointed I couldn't get it to look right (and non-offensive), I just settled with generic white guy Mordrak.

Swaping weapons and armour for future one is not the same as swapping the strong cultural and historical connotations for a supposedly better suited future one. The implications are not the same.

You both can ofc drive it to the ground with such examples and if you dont see the difference, I doubt that I am able to change your perception. There is a difference though. I still think it's not exclusively logic but also pc bombardment of artificial problems that makes you consider a woman knight not a completly ridiculous idea. We're all brainwashed though so there's that.

Majority of sf now seems to be showing future militaries free of prejudice etc. It's just politics inspires art, art inspires life, life inspires art etc maybe in different order but still. It doesnt mean that there was no bias in sf community at some point or that it is the only logical path for the future.

@Peregrine it wasnt a sexist remark. When I thought curtains with flower patterns I saw a nice cosy little house in Switzerland with heart shapen wooden shutters as opposed to some imposing monumental building of old. It wasnt a direct swing at women or sth, you could make a case for my subconscious sexism or crap like that but going back, I dont think so really. It's interesting though that it's your first connotation and symptomatic maybe? Maybe mind you, I just guess and obviously am biased as well.