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.

I was not talking headcanon. I was saying that since we have angelic supersaiyans shooting fire, flying space-wizards, daemons, aliens who make things work by believing they will and ancient space-elves facing soul-eating monsters, the notion of the strength difference between human sexes becoming rapidly irrelevant or non-existent seems completely reasonable.

 koooaei wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
In 40k, they may well be.

Why not. That's your head cannon. I don't mind. Just say it can work for girls too and make a chapter of girl-marines. Noone actually prohibits it. If something, it'd be cool. There might be a problem with female heads though. But not a huge one. People made pony-marines.

This is called heresy tho.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.

There's no doubting Space Marines are sexist.... but is that really a problem GW need to fix? I tend to think not.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why are we even talking about physical strength in a discussion of POWER ARMOR? The whole point of power armor is that it doesn't matter how strong you are. The machine is way stronger than any human could possibly dream of being, and all the human inside the armor does is tell the armor what to do. Talking about superior male strength makes about as much sense as arguing that men are better at typing because their awesome strength allows them to smash the keyboard harder.

If the strength of the wearer is irrelevant why do marines have their enhanced muscles and skeletons?

Why do regular humans in power armour have a lower strength in the game?

It would seem that it's not quite that simple.

If PA doesn't make the strength/model argument irrelevant may I just pose a question... why does an Imperial guard weapon's team require 2 individuals to carry,fire and maintain...say a heavy bolter and a SOB can do the same on her own (like a space marine) and yet her strength characteristic is 3?
Or why is a Callidus Assassin strength 4 without PA ..game mechanics, models and fluff do not match up with each other.

 Torus wrote:
why does an Imperial guard weapon's team require 2 individuals to carry,fire and maintain...say a heavy bolter and a SOB can do the same on her own (like a space marine) and yet her strength characteristic is 3?

That I think has a lot to do more with the weapon itself. Guard heavy bolters are big, heavy, with tripods and ammo belts that need to be fed into them by a loader.
Marines and Sisters have better gear. Yes it is still a heavy bolter, but a smaller one, with ammunition cases or backpack feeds that removes the need of a loader.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Why on earth would you give them armour emphasising -any- features?

According to some people in this thread you need to make them very clearly female - a "realistic" female space marine (i.e. basically indistinguishable from male in armour) is not acceptable.

What is the point of creating a game piece for girls to use to represent themselves in the imaginary world of the game if it's exactly the same as the existing male figures?

Conversely, why are so many boys on this forum so opposed to representing themselves in the game as female looking game pieces? Why would you care, if the format of the game pieces is irrelevant?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Why on earth would you give them armour emphasising -any- features?

According to some people in this thread you need to make them very clearly female - a "realistic" female space marine (i.e. basically indistinguishable from male in armour) is not acceptable.

What is the point of creating a game piece for girls to use to represent themselves in the imaginary world of the game if it's exactly the same as the existing male figures?

That line of thinking leads to a particular problem that you can see in some other games. One I would bring up as an example is World of Warcraft, but this applies in general. When you have the archetypal version of a figure designed as male, and then have a female figure designed with the notion that it must be different to the male one in particular major ways, the female figure gets moved further away from the archetype. I hope you see what I mean?

Personally, I think the best way for space marines, say, would be to have them all look the same in the armour, but have the characters without helmets have identifiably female faces, and obviously put room for it in the fluff. That way any proportion of your army is whatever gender since you have established room for the characters to be male or female.

An example of one I think moved backwards is Eldar. In the olden days, since they all looked the same, who could say which is which gender? These days they have boobplate, so suddenly a specific minority of them are singled out as female and the rest are left as male by default.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Why on earth would you give them armour emphasising -any- features?

According to some people in this thread you need to make them very clearly female - a "realistic" female space marine (i.e. basically indistinguishable from male in armour) is not acceptable.

What is the point of creating a game piece for girls to use to represent themselves in the imaginary world of the game if it's exactly the same as the existing male figures?

Who exactly are overly sexualized miniatures going to appeal to?

Look at Infinity - lots of female minis but definitely biases towards skimpier clothing and poses that stick the ass out. Infinity doesn't have a significant female player base so either wargaming in general just isn't a big pull for women regardless of female models or sexy female minis is just as bad as a shortage of female minis.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.

There's no doubting Space Marines are sexist.... but is that really a problem GW need to fix? I tend to think not.

By this logic, Sisters of battle are sexist because "No men under arms." Y'all need to take a chill pill and realise this is a game, not real life issues.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.

There's no doubting Space Marines are sexist.... but is that really a problem GW need to fix? I tend to think not.

By this logic, Sisters of battle are sexist because "No men under arms." Y'all need to take a chill pill and realise this is a game, not real life issues.

I agree. We're not talking about access to education or jobs or voting here. We're talking about a luxury product (I use the term luxury because it is something that no-one needs). All luxury products are about appeal (because they don't satisfy a need) and to maximise this most are deliberately designed to appeal more to one gender or the other.

There is nothing wrong with this.

Or are we going to complain that Anderson & Sheppard only make mens clothes and Chanel only make womens clothes?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.

There's no doubting Space Marines are sexist.... but is that really a problem GW need to fix? I tend to think not.

By this logic, Sisters of battle are sexist because "No men under arms." Y'all need to take a chill pill and realise this is a game, not real life issues.

SoB are sexist. Anything that discriminates by sex is sexist.

My point is just because something in an imaginary game world is sexist doesn't mean it needs to be "fixed" to be gender neutral.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.

There's no doubting Space Marines are sexist.... but is that really a problem GW need to fix? I tend to think not.

By this logic, Sisters of battle are sexist because "No men under arms." Y'all need to take a chill pill and realise this is a game, not real life issues.

SoB are sexist. Anything that discriminates by sex is sexist.

My point is just because something in an imaginary game world is sexist doesn't mean it needs to be "fixed" to be gender neutral.

True but there have real orders in real life that have only accepted certain sexes or sexualities.

If a game is replicating real life is it any less than what it was before?

For example in my stories and my book that I am publishing there is one order made up exclusively of men, not because of some held sexist viewpoint I the author held, but because it adds variety, not every organization or group will hold the same type of values as another. The Golden Horde being my example of that, compared to the Obsidia Knights or the Coven. If all of them had a shared view point and values it would be unrealisitic and a parody of itself.

A space marine not being female for example is nonissue, because being a space marine is literally being turned into a mindless puppet of the imperium war machine, more so than any of the other organizations. The Sisters of battle on the other hand will allow any woman to join, as long as they can get through the processes to become one.

In either situation it is worse off, do I be warrior who can live for aeons with no hope for peace? or a zealot with a very low chance of reprieve and peace.

In universe organizations that recruit specifically from certain sexes are not inherently sexist. Nor do the demean the whole group.

But what about diversity?

Diversity is always an issue when it comes to writing anything, if you want to make an interesting organization look at current groups and see what you are missing.

I do think it is a problem in 40k, it is no surprise and is one that I often talk about with people, calling 40k sexist, not because of the author's complaints but because of how poorly written it is, and how it is represented, the easiness of just adding a feminine feature is so ludcriously easily it is almost a parody of itself.

I do believe though that if we were to focus our attention onto what is wrong first, before coming up with solutions we will be able to figure out a solution from the truer problem, the answer is not always so simplified and so easy to contort.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.

There's no doubting Space Marines are sexist.... but is that really a problem GW need to fix? I tend to think not.

By this logic, Sisters of battle are sexist because "No men under arms." Y'all need to take a chill pill and realise this is a game, not real life issues.

SoB are sexist. Anything that discriminates by sex is sexist.

My point is just because something in an imaginary game world is sexist doesn't mean it needs to be "fixed" to be gender neutral.

It shouldn't. The entire fluff would need to be rewritten.

 koooaei wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
[…]And maybe we could physically modify the soldiers, men and women, up to a point that their initial strength do not matter?
SURPRISE!!! IT'S THE FUTURE!

How come sob are s3 than?

You may not be familiar with their fluff, but Sisters are normal humans, whose bodies are modified only by a very, very rigorous training (and a few extra, like juvenat treatment for the older members, but nothing on the same scale as the marine process).

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
One I would bring up as an example is World of Warcraft, but this applies in general. When you have the archetypal version of a figure designed as male, and then have a female figure designed with the notion that it must be different to the male one in particular major ways, the female figure gets moved further away from the archetype. I hope you see what I mean?

Let me translate. In WoW, male orcs are orcs, male trolls are trolls, female orcs are just women with green skin, female trolls are just women with blue skin, and this is completely creatively bankrupt.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
It shouldn't. The entire fluff would need to be rewritten.

I think I already asked, let me ask again. Beside that one line in that article in WD98, which piece of fluff would need to be rewritten? I am not sure how the Battle for Maccrage, or the 3rd war for Armaggedon, or the Age of Apostasy needs to be rewritten if female marines become a thing.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
It shouldn't. The entire fluff would need to be rewritten.

I think I already asked, let me ask again. Beside that one line in that article in WD98, which piece of fluff would need to be rewritten? I am not sure how the Battle for Maccrage, or the 3rd war for Armaggedon, or the Age of Apostasy needs to be rewritten if female marines become a thing.

They would have to re-write all of it to change "Battle Brothers" to "Sortie Siblings"!

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.

There's no doubting Space Marines are sexist.... but is that really a problem GW need to fix? I tend to think not.

By this logic, Sisters of battle are sexist because "No men under arms." Y'all need to take a chill pill and realise this is a game, not real life issues.

That was covered in earlier pages of the thread.

Perhaps you should take your own advice, take a chill pill and accept female space marines, as it's so unimportant.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Who exactly are overly sexualized miniatures going to appeal to?

Look at Infinity - lots of female minis but definitely biases towards skimpier clothing and poses that stick the ass out. Infinity doesn't have a significant female player base so either wargaming in general just isn't a big pull for women regardless of female models or sexy female minis is just as bad as a shortage of female minis.

I'd simply say that women are not nearly as interested in wargaming. The ones I do know that play or paint don't go straight for female heavy armies, but monstrous ones like Nids or Legion of Everblight.

In my experience I'd actually say there is more of a demand for male pinups than there is female space marines.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I'd simply say that women are not nearly as interested in wargaming.

Have you considered asking why?

That also used to be true of video games, and it has changed, of course, so why shouldn't it change in tabletop wargames?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.

There's no doubting Space Marines are sexist.... but is that really a problem GW need to fix? I tend to think not.

By this logic, Sisters of battle are sexist because "No men under arms." Y'all need to take a chill pill and realise this is a game, not real life issues.

That was covered in earlier pages of the thread.

Perhaps you should take your own advice, take a chill pill and accept female space marines, as it's so unimportant.

Or we could just leave everything as is. Nothing was broken besides the SoB armour. That's Baroque'n -rimshot-

Or we could change it.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I'd simply say that women are not nearly as interested in wargaming.

Have you considered asking why?

Stigmatism that only nerdy guys play with plastic space men?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Or we could change it.

Yeah, the armour.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That also used to be true of video games, and it has changed, of course, so why shouldn't it change in tabletop wargames?

FFS if men can dominate and take over my little pony, least they could do is stop whining when women come in to traditionally manly places.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I'd simply say that women are not nearly as interested in wargaming.

Have you considered asking why?

I have not, because I have never seen any express interest in anything other than the painting side of the hobby except for those that were already playing and didn't seem to be put off by the ratio of male to female models.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I'd simply say that women are not nearly as interested in wargaming.

Have you considered asking why?

I have not, because I have never seen any express interest in anything other than the painting side of the hobby except for those that were already playing and didn't seem to be put off by the ratio of male to female models.

Already playing and being put off by the ratio of male models to female models aren't mutually exclusive.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I'd simply say that women are not nearly as interested in wargaming.

Have you considered asking why?

I have not, because I

"assume I know everything about what women think, since women are all the same, yo"

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fluff is what GW say it is. All space marines have to be boys, because GW said so. You can't get more plainly sexist than that.

There's no doubting Space Marines are sexist.... but is that really a problem GW need to fix? I tend to think not.

By this logic, Sisters of battle are sexist because "No men under arms." Y'all need to take a chill pill and realise this is a game, not real life issues.

That was covered in earlier pages of the thread.

Perhaps you should take your own advice, take a chill pill and accept female space marines, as it's so unimportant.

Should Garfield become a dog because people like those and feel it would be more fair to have a dog comic to a cat only comic? It's pretty far stretched, but the point is it's their established background; part of the core of their character. If female space marines were to become a thing, then what would happen to the sisters? They would lose part of their unique flavour as a female only power armoured force to somewhat mirror the space marine's male only in a way. The last time a race didn't have it's own unique feeling to the background, their entire race was devoured by the Tyranids to avoid any effort to try to give them new meaning.

As it's been brought up a few times it's not even the balance of models when it comes to feeling disincluded or whatever, it's to do more with the atmosphere created by the playerbase. Perhaps that is the real issue we should all be spending over 15 pages to discuss because frankly all this talk about gender representation in models feels more like it's skipping around actual issues. I've never given the fact that marines are male only even a second thought, they had just said they are and my response was along the lines of "k".

 n0t_u wrote:
If female space marines were to become a thing, then what would happen to the sisters? They would lose part of their unique flavour as a female only power armoured force to somewhat mirror the space marine's male only in a way.

Good. Sisters' only excuse for existing being 'token females' is bad. They need a better reason for existing.

Which they do. The military arm of the church, ostentatious and zealous. Hell, if we are going to give three different chapters their own codices, that is certainly different enough. It just needs emphasis, exposition and exploration, which they don't get because GW has basically forgotten about them. .

 n0t_u wrote:
It's pretty far stretched, but the point is it's their established background; part of the core of their character.

How so?

 n0t_u wrote:
If female space marines were to become a thing, then what would happen to the sisters? They would lose part of their unique flavour as a female only power armoured force to somewhat mirror the space marine's male only in a way.

You have a very, very shallow understanding of Sisters if you think so.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
If female space marines were to become a thing, then what would happen to the sisters? They would lose part of their unique flavour as a female only power armoured force to somewhat mirror the space marine's male only in a way.

Good. Sisters' only excuse for existing being 'token females' is bad. They need a better reason for existing.

Which they do. The military arm of the church, ostentatious and zealous. Hell, if we are going to give three different chapters their own codices, that is certainly different enough. It just needs emphasis, exposition and exploration, which they don't get because GW has basically forgotten about them. .

They are (or were) supposed to be the Yin to the Astartes' Yang.