A Irrelevant Non-issue

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.

**Buttery Commissar**

Furyou Miko wrote:
This "article" is utter trash and not worth the name, let alone the discussion it's spawned.

Please not that I am, in fact, saying this as a woman, a feminist, and a Sisters player.

I'm also saying this as an academic who is utterly disgusted by the lack of research, data sourcing and actual, worthwhile content in the post.

About the only thing the author wrote that has any merit is that female Guard models would be cool, and the Sisters need updating... and that is pure opinion, no matter how much he tries to dress it up as fact!

Honestly, it's clickbait using the name Warhammer to try and expand its market share.

I haven't even read the thing, because from the url and responses like this from posters I respect, I know that better use of my clicky finger would be up my nose, or poking a cat.
Articles like this only serve to make people with sane issues with sexism look deluded by association.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
3. Not every setting needs to be a champion of equality. I wonder, maybe part of having the space marines as genetic abominations that are male entirely is to point out exactly how INEQUAL people are in the imperium?

That's ridiculous. Do you know what shows the 40k setting is a terrible distopia? The terrible treatment of mutants, even those that are loyal and innocent. The huge, labyrinthine administration which means a whole planet population can be exterminated as retribution for not paying a tithe that is thrice as much as the whole planet production because a scribe somewhere made a typo. The general lack of care for human life that high-ranking imperial figures display regularly. And of course all the fighting against horrible xenos and chaos cults and all that.
Just try it for yourself. Go to your LGS, and ask random 40k fans what they think shows the 40k setting is a distopia. Then notice how nobody brings out the fact that only men can be Space Marines. Especially considering that women can become high lord, lording above any space marine.

Also notice how all the things above are relatively unique to 40k, and add a special flavor to it, while having the Space Marines be only male is just… well, bland and generic. It certainly does not set 40k apart, sadly.

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
So its ok for Females to have an entire army (SoB) but god forbid IG and SM don't have females? Can we have Brothers of Battle to then?

Let me introduce you to Priests, Crusaders, Frateris Militia, Arco-flagellant, Penitent engine. Now, SoB are one of the smallest range in the game. Space Marines are the biggest one. Enlighten me with all those various female models in Space Marines army!

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
Here is a crazy idea. Instead of worrying about all the small things like plastic figurines in a table top game why not focus on the bigger issues? Like women in certain countries not getting to vote and being raped/molested because they are females?

Sure, please focus on this. My first advice would be to stop posting in this thread so you get more time to actually learn stuff about those countries

.

the_Armyman wrote:
But I'm a white male in a first world country, and I'm pretty sure my opinion doesn't matter.

To whom? I'm pretty sure that the politician running your country care about who you will be voting for next election. I am sure the entertainers care about whether you are going to buy their movie/video game/book/… or not. I am pretty sure your complaint that nobody cares about your opinion is just baseless whining from someone that is just too used to being the center of all attention…
Yeah, on some pretty specific topic, some people will think your opinion is less relevant because you are a white male in a first world country. Some of the time they'll be totally right too. Deal with it. Or cry me a river, your choice.

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
And if it stays the same then I can live happy knowing that GW is either willing to stand up to feminists who desire everything to be equal

STAND PROUD AGAINST EQUALITY! INEQUALITY FOR THE WIN!
Especially if that means I get more.

TheWanderer wrote:
For varieties sake if nothing else I would love to see more female models and fluff in 40k and fantasy but to be honest does everything need to be pc these days?

Not sure what you mean by PC. If what you mean is “Does everything need to have gender parity in it ?”, I'm going to say no, it should just be the default case that is only deviated from when there is a good, out-of-universe (see the Thermian Argument mentioned in OP article) reason for doing it, i.e. when it actually serves the storytelling.
In 40k, that's not the case.

Peregrine wrote:
There has to be a line in the sand.

Why? What is this catastrophic harm that a line in the sand is protecting against?

Duh, Peregrine, that's obvious. People that he disagree with may be happy! That's really a dreadful perspective.

Furyou Miko wrote:
This "article" is utter trash and not worth the name, let alone the discussion it's spawned.

Please not that I am, in fact, saying this as a woman, a feminist, and a Sisters player.

I'm also saying this as an academic who is utterly disgusted by the lack of research, data sourcing and actual, worthwhile content in the post.

About the only thing the author wrote that has any merit is that female Guard models would be cool, and the Sisters need updating... and that is pure opinion, no matter how much he tries to dress it up as fact!

Honestly, it's clickbait using the name Warhammer to try and expand its market share.

So… what's your beef with the article?

**Furyou Miko**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

So… what's your beef with the article?

Just gonna copy paste it since I think I explained it pretty well elsewhere.

Which all brings us back to my real point;

The point of this article is not to argue for equal representation.

The point of the article is to complain about the lack of updates to the Sisters and Guard ranges. Despite being posted on a Social Justice blog, it's a 40k article first.

The article is not well researched.

The article ignores massive swathes of information, as well as outright denying the existence of several models. It dismisses assumptions that do not fit with its message without addressing them, and openly discards concepts that disprove it without backing up its decision to do so.

The article is not well written.

The article meanders between ideas with little direction or intent. It has no internal structure, and does not present a concise argument. The laguage wobbles between being overly simple and throwing in half-understood advanced concepts and theories in order to achieve the illusion of erudition. In short, it uses occasional long words to sound smarter.

Essentially, on a scale of zero to Peer Reviewed, the article sits somewhere around The Daily Prophet.

It's basically inherently damaging to the cause it's pretending to champion.

**epronovost**

Furyou Miko wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

So… what's your beef with the article?

Just gonna copy paste it since I think I explained it pretty well elsewhere.

Which all brings us back to my real point;

The point of this article is not to argue for equal representation.

The point of the article is to complain about the lack of updates to the Sisters and Guard ranges. Despite being posted on a Social Justice blog, it's a 40k article first.

The article is not well researched.

The article ignores massive swathes of information, as well as outright denying the existence of several models. It dismisses assumptions that do not fit with its message without addressing them, and openly discards concepts that disprove it without backing up its decision to do so.

The article is not well written.

The article meanders between ideas with little direction or intent. It has no internal structure, and does not present a concise argument. The laguage wobbles between being overly simple and throwing in half-understood advanced concepts and theories in order to achieve the illusion of erudition. In short, it uses occasional long words to sound smarter.

Essentially, on a scale of zero to Peer Reviewed, the article sits somewhere around The Daily Prophet.

It's basically inherently damaging to the cause it's pretending to champion.

I agree with your critique of this article. It's indeed just a rant for female guard models and new Sisters of Battle and nothing more. It does a good job to explain why it's a shame it hasn't been done before and what would be the benefit of doing so. It also does touch on the issue of the difficulties on getting any sort of feedback on this issue by GW. Its the equivalent of a newspaper editorial posted on a large blog who publish articles based on the loosely defined term of «Social Justice». Where I don't agree with you, is that I don't think it arms in any way the cause of gender equality in the boardgame medium (or in any other area). Anyone searching good, competent feminist critique and analysis of a medium should not be looking around popular blog. That's not where those things are published. Very little high quality pertinent articles are published in popular blogs or news website. Sometime, you will get some excellent articles, but in open blog like these you will get a metric ton of crap or cheap edditorial (not to call them rant). Any person who would use these blog extensively in a serious discussion or debate about gender role and representation in any medium would only demonstrate crass ignorance, stupidity or dishonesty.

**the Signless**

Furyou Miko wrote:
Which all brings us back to my real point;

The point of this article is not to argue for equal representation.

The point of the article is to complain about the lack of updates to the Sisters and Guard ranges. Despite being posted on a Social Justice blog, it's a 40k article first.

The article is not well researched.

The article ignores massive swathes of information, as well as outright denying the existence of several models. It dismisses assumptions that do not fit with its message without addressing them, and openly discards concepts that disprove it without backing up its decision to do so.

The article is not well written.

The article meanders between ideas with little direction or intent. It has no internal structure, and does not present a concise argument. The laguage wobbles between being overly simple and throwing in half-understood advanced concepts and theories in order to achieve the illusion of erudition. In short, it uses occasional long words to sound smarter.

Essentially, on a scale of zero to Peer Reviewed, the article sits somewhere around The Daily Prophet.

It's basically inherently damaging to the cause it's pretending to champion.

I could not agree more. While there may be some point to this discussion (if just to argue for updated guard and sisters kits), this article read like someone threw up catch phrases and words at a piece of paper while ranting about how they want an update. The fact that there was only a link to the article also suggests the hypothesis that this was just click-bait designed to catch feminists, anti-feminists, and Warhammer 40,000 fans.

Finally, you insult the Daily Prophet. This is more in line with a BoLS sisters update (with plastic thunderhawk) rumour.

**MorkorpossiblyGork**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
3. Not every setting needs to be a champion of equality. I wonder, maybe part of having the space marines as genetic abominations that are male entirely is to point out exactly how INEQUAL people are in the imperium?

That's ridiculous. Do you know what shows the 40k setting is a terrible distopia? The terrible treatment of mutants, even those that are loyal and innocent. The huge, labyrinthine administration which means a whole planet population can be exterminated as retribution for not paying a tithe that is thrice as much as the whole planet production because a scribe somewhere made a typo. The general lack of care for human life that high-ranking imperial figures display regularly. And of course all the fighting against horrible xenos and chaos cults and all that.
Just try it for yourself. Go to your LGS, and ask random 40k fans what they think shows the 40k setting is a distopia. Then notice how nobody brings out the fact that only men can be Space Marines. Especially considering that women can become high lord, lording above any space marine.

Also notice how all the things above are relatively unique to 40k, and add a special flavor to it, while having the Space Marines be only male is just… well, bland and generic. It certainly does not set 40k apart, sadly.

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
So its ok for Females to have an entire army (SoB) but god forbid IG and SM don't have females? Can we have Brothers of Battle to then?

Let me introduce you to Priests, Crusaders, Frateris Militia, Arco-flagellant, Penitent engine. Now, SoB are one of the smallest range in the game. Space Marines are the biggest one. Enlighten me with all those various female models in Space Marines army!

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
Here is a crazy idea. Instead of worrying about all the small things like plastic figurines in a table top game why not focus on the bigger issues? Like women in certain countries not getting to vote and being raped/molested because they are females?

Sure, please focus on this. My first advice would be to stop posting in this thread so you get more time to actually learn stuff about those countries .

the_Armyman wrote:
But I'm a white male in a first world country, and I'm pretty sure my opinion doesn't matter.

To whom? I'm pretty sure that the politician running your country care about who you will be voting for next election. I am sure the entertainers care about whether you are going to buy their movie/video game/book/… or not. I am pretty sure your complaint that nobody cares about your opinion is just baseless whining from someone that is just too used to being the center of all attention…
Yeah, on some pretty specific topic, some people will think your opinion is less relevant because you are a white male in a first world country. Some of the time they'll be totally right too. Deal with it. Or cry me a river, your choice.

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
And if it stays the same then I can live happy knowing that GW is either willing to stand up to feminists who desire everything to be equal

STAND PROUD AGAINST EQUALITY! INEQUALITY FOR THE WIN!
Especially if that means I get more.

TheWanderer wrote:
For varieties sake if nothing else I would love to see more female models and fluff in 40k and fantasy but to be honest does everything need to be pc these days?

Not sure what you mean by PC. If what you mean is “Does everything need to have gender parity in it ?”, I'm going to say no, it should just be the default case that is only deviated from when there is a good, out-of-universe (see the Thermian Argument mentioned in OP article) reason for doing it, i.e. when it actually serves the storytelling.
In 40k, that's not the case.

Peregrine wrote:
There has to be a line in the sand.

Why? What is this catastrophic harm that a line in the sand is protecting against?

Duh, Peregrine, that's obvious. People that he disagree with may be happy! That's really a dreadful perspective.

Furyou Miko wrote:
This "article" is utter trash and not worth the name, let alone the discussion it's spawned.

Please not that I am, in fact, saying this as a woman, a feminist, and a Sisters player.

I'm also saying this as an academic who is utterly disgusted by the lack of research, data sourcing and actual, worthwhile content in the post.

About the only thing the author wrote that has any merit is that female Guard models would be cool, and the Sisters need updating... and that is pure opinion, no matter how much he tries to dress it up as fact!

Honestly, it's clickbait using the name Warhammer to try and expand its market share.

So… what's your beef with the article?

Well beyond the fact that you are taking comments from others and attributing them to me

.

If you are so opposed to the ideal of unequal representation in all things then do you also boycott professional sports? I mean the NHL, NBA, MLB, NFL and MLS have a grand total of zero females on ALL of those teams. Should we then rage against them for unequal representation of females?

Changing everything in the world to be equal is both a waste of time and ridiculous.

MIXED GENDER:
Tau have female models, Eldar and DE have female models, Demons has females as well,

NO GENDER:
Orks, Tyrnids and necrons don't have gender in the way we think of it so who cares about them?

FEMALE ONLY:
Sisters of battle

MALE ONLY:
Space Marines (chaos and imperial), IG.....what else?

So its not mixed 100% equally but saying the game doesn't have female representation is ludicrous. Could IG use female models? sure go ahead and give them models for all we care, even if in the real world (Ohh god he said Real world again) only 2 countries have Females in Infantry and the US being one of them that has yet to implement it. And regardless of what some Army butter bar says, the standards are slipping and have always been biased for women.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Please only quote the part of my message you are answering too, else it is needlessly wasting space.

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
Well beyond the fact that you are taking comments from others and attributing them to me .

Oups, sorry, fixed.

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
If you are so opposed to the ideal of unequal representation in all things then do you also boycott professional sports? I mean the NHL, NBA, MLB, NFL and MLS have a grand total of zero females on ALL of those teams.

How would I know, I don't really care for those sports ^^.

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
Changing everything in the world to be equal is both a waste of time and ridiculous.

Okay, then let's focus on 40k specifically then

.

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
MIXED GENDER:
Tau have female models, Eldar and DE have female models, Demons has females as well,

Eldar could help more female model outside of guardians and banshees. No female farseer, for instance, is a bit of a shame, given how often they happen in the fluff.
Demon don't have “female”. They have one brand of daemon that show boobs because Slaanesh…

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
NO GENDER:
Orks, Tyrnids and necrons don't have gender in the way we think of it so who cares about them?

Do you mean that Ork Boyz don't have any gender? How about calling them Ork Girlz then? I'm personally all for it.
Necron have gender if you look at forgeworld, who made a female special character. They are also always refereed to with male pronouns…

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
FEMALE ONLY:
Sisters of battle

MALE ONLY:
Space Marines (chaos and imperial), IG.....what else?

So its not mixed 100% equally but saying the game doesn't have female representation is ludicrous.

Space marines are, what, a dozen armies? They have, what, a hundred time as many release as Sister ever got in total? Their last release was in 2004…
When was the last female model released?

**oz of the north**

Callidus assassin was release pretty recently

**MeanGreenStompa**

My thoughts.

It would be totally cool to have more models to choose from and for a great many of those models to be female. Especially among the Imperial Guard, Tau, Chaos etc, as well as a rerelease of the SOB.

The writer of this article is, along with others I read before, confusing willful exclusion and sexism with aiming a game at a specific demographic it's most likely to find a customer base in. I believe that model is now outdated, but GW moving like some dinosaur stuck in a tar pit doesn't make it sexist, just archaic and ponderous. Aiming ranges at other demographics to widen your audience/customer base, seems logical.

I have always considered Tyranids, much like Xenomorphs, to be female. They are led by Norn Queens, and have harridans, dominatrix, harpies etc. YMMV

In conclusion, more female models would be great, especially if sculpted well. Bringing in new players, regardless of gender, is a good thing. Bringing in new female players is a great thing, I have never been sat at better tabletop RPGs than mixed gender ones, women can bring new perspectives to the hobby, I really welcome that. Some posters here and elsewhere seem to think they're under attack and are feeling threatened, get a grip, take a vape, adjust your fedora, take a deep breath and deal with it, there are lots of things in life that are out to feth your happiness up, girls sitting at the gaming table isn't one of them. Also the article is garbage, poorly written clickbait garbage.

**epronovost**

@Hybrid Son of Oxayotl

I think you can stop trying to argue with MorkorpossiblyGork since he clearly stated that he would not listen to any argument that don't match his prejudices and preconceptions. There is no need for an argument to be demonstrated that there is much fewer female models in GW than male ones, that the exclusively female army is by far the least supported and that the miniature line could be improved by adding sexual diversity. This is as evident as saying that the Earth is indeed round after looking at a picture of it.

**OgreChubbs**

epronovost wrote:
@Hybrid Son of Oxayotl

I think you can stop trying to argue with MorkorpossiblyGork since he clearly stated that he would not listen to any argument that don't match his prejudices and preconceptions. There is no need for an argument to be demonstrated that there is much fewer female models in GW than male ones, that the exclusively female army is by far the least supported and that the miniature line could be improved by adding sexual diversity. This is as evident as saying that the Earth is indeed round after looking at a picture of it.

the fact sob do not get support may have to do with the five year petetion with like 3000 signatures. Just because those who complain the loudest want them doesnt mean the community as a whole does.

Oh sorry 1000 sigs in atleat 2 years lol damn sexest not wanting to lose money on a dead line.

https://www.change.org/p/games-workshop-reboot-the-sisters-of-battle-adepta-sororitas-army-models-in-plastic

**oz of the north**

This is just my opinion and I am in no way opposed to getting more females in the games. The most likely reason for that is the reward/profit will not justify the investment. GW is a business, who's primary goal is to be profitable.

Creating new molds for females would be expensive and I doubt that creating those would make people who never played 40k, or IG before, start buying models. It would just be another expenditure with not much gain.

The reason that sisters have not been re-released in such a long time is they were never that big sellers even when brand new, so GW needs to pay employees and stay profitable, so making models that will not sell well, and have not in the past, is just not a great business plan.

Again this is just my opinion from what I have seen.

**jonolikespie**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Aiming ranges at other demographics to widen your audience/customer base, seems logical.

Except that GW have been aiming for narrower and narrower demographics in recent years.

**nudibranch**

Well I agree with the article. More diversity is never a bad thing IMHO, and it's always cool for people to be represented in their favourite settings

**epronovost**

OgreChubbs wrote:
epronovost wrote:
@Hybrid Son of Oxayotl

I think you can stop trying to argue with MorkorpossiblyGork since he clearly stated that he would not listen to any argument that don't match his prejudices and preconceptions. There is no need for an argument to be demonstrated that there is much fewer female models in GW than male ones, that the exclusively female army is by far the least supported and that the miniature line could be improved by adding sexual diversity. This is as evident as saying that the Earth is indeed round after looking at a picture of it.
the fact sob do not get support may have to do with the five year petetion with like 3000 signatures. Just because those who complain the loudest want them doesnt mean the community as a whole does.

Oh sorry 1000 sigs in atleat 2 years lol damn sexest not wanting to lose money on a dead line.

https://www.change.org/p/games-workshop-reboot-the-sisters-of-battle-adepta-sororitas-army-models-in-plastic

What point were you trying to argue with you reply? Your reply seems absolutly irrelevent to what I was saying in the passage you decided to quote. The fact that Sisters of Battle are very unpopular has absolutly no impact on the fact that they exist, have old models and that new models would improve GW product line overall or that a greater gender diversity (or diversity period) in its product would also improve the quality of its miniature line.

**SilverMK2**

OgreChubbs wrote:
the fact sob do not get support may have to do with the five year petetion with like 3000 signatures. Just because those who complain the loudest want them doesnt mean the community as a whole does.

Oh sorry 1000 sigs in atleat 2 years lol damn sexest not wanting to lose money on a dead line.

https://www.change.org/p/games-workshop-reboot-the-sisters-of-battle-adepta-sororitas-army-models-in-plastic

You may be confusing the fact that people don't see the point of signing an online petition to try and convince a company that is famous for not listening to its customers to do something with an actual desire in the customer base for SoB (or just something different).

Hell, look at the DE - they used to be a reject faction left out in the rain; someone at GW came along who liked DE and had the clout to get them re-done and re-released and they are back with the hip kids (and for some reason SM's who no one really likes but for some reason is "popular"

).

**HoundsofDemos**

My understanding is that Sisters of Battle have never sold well, even when initially released. Games workshop is a company trying to make money. If they feel a model won't sell they arn't going to re do the line.

**Tactical_Spam**

HoundsofDemos wrote:
My understanding is that Sisters of Battle have never sold well, even when initially released. Games workshop is a company trying to make money. If they feel a model won't sell they arn't going to re do the line.

Probably didn't sell well because they are $7 a model and made of pewter

**HoundsofDemos**

They weren't always that expensive, that's price creep from over time. As for being made of metal, that was pretty standard until recently, the evolution to mostly plastic was a slow steady march.

**Amoras**

This army has female models is oviously not a key selling point and it doesn't make sense for a business to invest money into stuff that isn;t gonna get themm anny more sales.

Dark eldar got a huge overhaul and they have alot of female models yet are also one of the less popular armies.

Sisters aren't popular either and sure price will play a big part in that but they oviously feel there is no proffit in changing that or they would.

Maybe they could add a female head or 2 on the spue whenn guardsmen need new sprues but they ceraily shouldn;t make new sprues yust to add in the diversity, it won;t get themm more sales.

**epronovost**

HoundsofDemos wrote:
My understanding is that Sisters of Battle have never sold well, even when initially released. Games workshop is a company trying to make money. If they feel a model won't sell they arn't going to re do the line.

That's actually true, but irrelevent now. The last time the Sisters of Battle had a release was when their very first model were created. Back then, GW was not half the size it is now and a large portion of the current player base were not even born at that point or barely able to walk. Saying something wasn't popular 20 years ago is not a reason to say that something won't be popular or simply profitable now. In the early/mid 90's the Tau line would have probably been a failure since the Mecha and Anime style wasn't very popular amongst European and North American young adults and teens. Most were still exposed to local child and teen entertainment style in cartoons and fiction. Five years later and the Anime scene was three time larger and more diverse. To this day, the Tau remain one of the best success of the 40K line. In fact the entire concept of 40K would have been a complete failure if it would have attempted to published itself 10 years before. Dystopian future got really popular in the larger poblic the wake of movies like Terminator, Alien or Blade Runner. Before that, Star Trek and Star Wars style were dominating the genre in the mainstream public with a more hopeful vision of the future where technologie is good and humans are living better lives with new challenges. Then again, GW hold a policy of secret on its future release and project so its almost impossible to know what they think of this issue. I suppose it must end on their table once in while. All that to say that a failure dating back from 20 years ago is in no way a good argument considering how much social changes have affected the science-fantasy genre and the community of those enjoying it.

**Buttery Commissar**

Are Sisters models attractive to women?
Most girls I know that play, do not play SoB. I only know of one female SoB player, and she is older, someone with a strong sense if humour (and steady income to pair with that per model cost). They're certainly not accessible to a new player, male or female.

Can you think of many better ways to kill a sale dead than having someone walk into a store, see the various starters or quick start sets, and ask "how do I play something with women?" and then having to lead them to a computer and show them that they can neither buy a codex book, nor boxes in such affordable quantity as any other troop choice. Also the Repentia.

I just don't think SoB can be used to pretend GW cater to women these days, if ever they could.

**Tinkrr**

Edit: Ok, let's honestly pose this question, is anyone here actually opposed to a new IG kit that includes female heads in it? If anyone is, please speak up, I'm not talking about full sculpts, just heads. If not, can we please stop pretending this is an actual thing that exists because that seems to be what one side of the discussion believes about the other.

Tiberius501 wrote:
What is the point of this argument? I find it pretty funny how heated its getting.

"I reckon it'd be sweet to see some female heads on some of the factions that don't have them"

"YOU DARE COME INTO 'MY' HOBBY AND ADD FEMALE HEADS TO IT? You disgust me..."

Can I ask a question? Who cares? If they add a couple of head option that some people like, how the hell does that affect the people who don't want it? Don't need to put those heads on your figures, and you can continue to collect your army of men. Some people want some female heads in their army. "OH GOD! female heads?! SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS GETTING THEIR WAY!" Or maybe some people just want some female heads... Just like we all want updated chaos figures. What is the big deal? I'm baffled by how self righteous so many people are in this hobby when 40k is ALL ABOUT DIVERSITY AND CRAZY THINGS AND EVEYTHING UNREALISTIC! Has everyone forgotten what 40k was originally? A crazy hard rock 80's punk 'f*ck everything real' hobby of crazy sh*t.

And here we have a bunch of losers whinging about how it'd be "diversity for diversity's sake" to add a bunch of female heads to some factions that don't have them.....

I feel like some of you should grow up and get over yourselves and just let some things go for the sake of a few people who'd like them, which don't even impact you in any way.

Peace out peeps

You do understand this is the very reason there's such a discussion about this, right? Because when an article states:

We’ve established that the state of gender representation in Warhammer 40k is a major problem at best, and a complete disaster at worst.

And people reply that that's not really the case as there are factions with equality, factions with disparity in both genders, and everything in between, there are those such as yourself who make a giant rant about how they're all sexist horrible people and raving lunatics.

That's really the problem, and why people don't really accept these kind of pushes, because I doubt anyone really cares if they make female IG heads (As in they wouldn't be bothered if GW announced they were making them in the next kit), but rather that they're being called sexists, bigots, and more as a result of them thinking that it's ok for Marines to be the fanatic bigots that they're made out to be in the fluff, while the Tau are the more progressive idealistic species.

**War Kitten**

I would be perfectly fine with some Guard kits being released with female heads, even if we get no new sculpts. The way I remember reading about Guard equipment It is that most Guard uniforms and armor are either too small or too big, so just including some female heads actually might work out ok (the Cadian sculpts already look off when it comes to proportions so it wouldn't be a big deal for me)

**Tinkrr**

War Kitten wrote:
I would be perfectly fine with some Guard kits being released with female heads, even if we get no new sculpts. The way I remember reading about Guard equipment It is that most Guard uniforms and armor are either too small or too big, so just including some female heads actually might work out ok (the Cadian sculpts already look off when it comes to proportions so it wouldn't be a big deal for me)

This isn't just the case for guard, as a whole armour has always been pretty genderless because you want it to be curved outwards in the center, as in a breastplate, which can fit a female or male equally well. The Tau are a great example of this because frankly they have male and female heads for their units, but the armour looks identical on both, and it's not because it's standard male design, it's because it's designed for efficiency, not decoration.

Even modern gear is amazingly gender neutral, even when it's not too small or too large. The reason for this is simply that you have a shirt, then a bullet proof vest of some sort, then a jacket, and then gear on top of that to carry various things, so it drowns out almost all form, and it just so happens that what we associate with the male form is basically generic form. It's the same thing as when you're painting and apply layer after layer of thick paint, and just lose all the detail in the model itself because of it, that's how combat gear and armour works:

Edit: And yes, Cadian sculpts are goofy as hell.

**Swastakowey**

Just pointing out that when you see female soldiers next to male soldiers there is a huge difference in size and thickness 99% of the time. Without the male soldier in the pictures yes they looks a little less feminine but next to a male soldier they tend to be dwarfed (just like when you look at women on the street etc).

Simple head swaps will make already beefy models look even more ridiculous.

Any serious attempt (even using Male Cadians as a base... shudder) would need their own bodies.

On a side note very few pictures of female soldiers are full body near male so its surprisingly hard to see it, but when you see them in real life the difference is pretty easy to spot.

So ultimately new bodies will be needed if they for whatever reason did some female guardsmen.

See below:

Spoiler:

**Tinkrr**

The issue is that with the scale of models it's really hard to show that size difference. I mean after all, aren't Space Marines significantly taller than IG, but it doesn't really show unless you modify the Space Marine models.

The Tau are also supposed to be on average a bit shorter than a human, to the point that you can say they'd not be far off from a female to a male in stature in regard, but I'm pretty sure a Tau Fire Warrior is the same size as a guardsman.

Granted, I don't see any issue with making some of the models smaller in size than others, it's just that they usually make the torsos completely uniform in kits and then build around them, which would be the only real issue. Though honestly, there's nothing gendered about that either as you'd still be able to have regular women along with Brienne of Tarth sized women if you wanted, or just smaller men with larger men, or a mix of all of that, which is always good for options.

**Swastakowey**

Tinkrr wrote:
The issue is that with the scale of models it's really hard to show that size difference. I mean after all, aren't Space Marines significantly taller than IG, but it doesn't really show unless you modify the Space Marine models.

The Tau are also supposed to be on average a bit shorter than a human, to the point that you can say they'd not be far off from a female to a male in stature in regard, but I'm pretty sure a Tau Fire Warrior is the same size as a guardsman.

Granted, I don't see any issue with making some of the models smaller in size than others, it's just that they usually make the torsos completely uniform in kits and then build around them, which would be the only real issue. Though honestly, there's nothing gendered about that either as you'd still be able to have regular women along with Brienne of Tarth sized women if you wanted, or just smaller men with larger men, or a mix of all of that, which is always good for options.

Yes like the Cadians, GW has huge scale issues which is common when the model line has no actual scale. However at this scale the difference will be easily noticeable, it's at like 1/100 scale where it stops mattering for things like this.

Most companies will make smaller models for females since it's simply accurate in general.

**epronovost**

Swastakowey wrote:
Just pointing out that when you see female soldiers next to male soldiers there is a huge difference in size and thickness 99% of the time. Without the male soldier in the pictures yes they looks a little less feminine but next to a male soldier they tend to be dwarfed (just like when you look at women on the street etc).

Simple head swaps will make already beefy models look even more ridiculous.

Any serious attempt (even using Male Cadians as a base... shudder) would need their own bodies.

On a side note very few pictures of female soldiers are full body near male so its surprisingly hard to see it, but when you see them in real life the difference is pretty easy to spot.

So ultimately new bodies will be needed if they for whatever reason did some female guardsmen.

See below:

Spoiler:

I would agree with your assessment for Cadian models, but what about Scions. Since the breastplate is particularly large, I think that a female head would not be out of place on that sort of model. Plus the berret always suited women better than men in my opinion. Since women can also be Scions (though male would be much more numerous) What do you think about this scenario? On the downside, Scion just had new models and its unlikely they will be updated in the next three years.

**SagesStone**

I'm surprised this drivel has been left going do long.

Tl;dr yeh IG need females, no space marines have reasons for not having any females and 3 most of the people who would be offended by this basically get offended by the sun rising in the morning.

Cause at the end of the day it's not the lack of female models, and there's a bunch anyway, but the BO and the awkward staring that does the most. Not everyone is like that of course, but I can assure you it's far more offputting than space marines being male only.