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 agree that there should be more females in 40k, and SoB in particular need to be accessible in general (for selfish reasons, I WANT THEM), but I don't think it does a lot for your argument when people say check your privledge or something to that effect.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Our president is a daemon prince of Tzeentch "black." Your argument is invalid

So, how many presidents of the USA were black? How many were women? Which percentage of the current congress is black? Women? Which percentage of the CEO of multinationals?
Damn, how could I not realize the literally the only metric was who is the current president…

The current president is also often hated and mistrusted specifically because of his skin color, with people throwing around accusations of "Muslim!" (which is apparently a bad thign now?) because of his skin color and ethnic name. It's foolish to argue we currently live in an equal society, especially when it's kind of tangential to the topic at hand.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Our president is a daemon prince of Tzeentch "black." Your argument is invalid

So, how many presidents of the USA were black? How many were women? Which percentage of the current congress is black? Women? Which percentage of the CEO of multinationals?
Damn, how could I not realize the literally the only metric was who is the current president…

Discrimination happens. You said Black people can't be racist because they haven't been in power, so I gave you an example. Everyone is capable of discrimination. It doesn't matter if you are in power or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
The current president is also often hated and mistrusted specifically because of his skin color, with people throwing around accusations of "Muslim!" (which is apparently a bad thign now?) because of his skin color and ethnic name. It's foolish to argue we currently live in an equal society, especially when it's kind of tangential to the topic at hand.

I think the current president, Obama, sucks because he only separated the American peoples, not united them.

epronovost wrote:

And when you look at any real army, you realise that women presence amount to tokenism and very, very far from equal (or near equal) representation. Thinking that women are well represented in any real army absurd and I don't even know why anybody would argue that it is (unless you are realistic enough to consider that women should have no place or very little place in that medium).

Real armies don't have Warlord Titans either.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Our president is a daemon prince of Tzeentch "black." Your argument is invalid

So, how many presidents of the USA were black? How many were women? Which percentage of the current congress is black? Women? Which percentage of the CEO of multinationals?
Damn, how could I not realize the literally the only metric was who is the current president…

Discrimination happens. You said Black people can't be racist because they haven't been in power, so I gave you an example. Everyone is capable of discrimination. It doesn't matter if you are in power or not.

Thank you. I've seen a lot of this "reverse racism doesn't exist" and it makes my blood boil. You can be a racist prick regardless of soci-economic status as well as *gasp* race or gender. Same goes for sexism.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Our president is a daemon prince of Tzeentch "black." Your argument is invalid

So, how many presidents of the USA were black? How many were women? Which percentage of the current congress is black? Women? Which percentage of the CEO of multinationals?
Damn, how could I not realize the literally the only metric was who is the current president…

Discrimination happens. You said Black people can't be racist because they haven't been in power, so I gave you an example. Everyone is capable of discrimination. It doesn't matter if you are in power or not.

Thank you. I've seen a lot of this "reverse racism doesn't exist" and it makes my blood boil. You can be a racist prick regardless of soci-economic status as well as *gasp* race or gender. Same goes for sexism.

Agreed. Being a visible minority doesn't inherently make oneself magically "non-racist". Hell I'm Chinese and we have a bunch of racist slang terms for whites, blacks, etc. There's plenty of racism to go around, whether you're black, white, yellow or rainbow.

 koooaei wrote:

epronovost wrote:

And when you look at any real army, you realise that women presence amount to tokenism and very, very far from equal (or near equal) representation. Thinking that women are well represented in any real army absurd and I don't even know why anybody would argue that it is (unless you are realistic enough to consider that women should have no place or very little place in that medium).

Some real army were made mostly of women (Kingdom of Dahomey, the most powerful African kingdom from the 15th to 19th century mostly known to be slavers and for their succesful production of peanut oil), pretty equal (Sarmatian Federation, an Empire the size of Ukraine built by a queen who «invented» Black Ops strategie and gave birth to the Greek legend of the Amazon) or pretty significant despite being less numerous (the kingdom of Champa in modern Vietnam was known to boast several female generals and officers). No real army[/i] was ever made of super-soldiers, mutants, power armored troops, aliens, robots or mythological creatures. Yet [b]all armies of 40K have at least one element of that list if not several. This, ironically, make the Sisters of Battle more realistic than the Space Marines since there were armies made only of elite female warriors, but none of superhuman. If you want something that's trying to be realistic you should play historical game, but even these ones should have some female troops to represent women who did fight in those armies either as militia, strange exception or women in disguise since that would represent history better. Considering that the number of women in the army is augmenting steadily since the mid 70's, in about 30 to 40 years nearly half the recruits might very well be women at this rate. Shouldn't a futuristic army game represent the future and not the past (even if it can still draw from it) in its composition and tactic? Since 40K is a fictional universe we can have all that we want in it. Since women can and do fight in reality why should they not fight in fiction? Since the very best women in history in the fields of strategy, tactic or personnal combat can rival, equal or even best the very best men in history those very same field why should women in the future be any different (I can PM some biography if you want)? Last, but not least, perhaps you should question why its fine for you to play a futuristic army armed with poor quality axes and swords, but not one where a women (armed and armored with futuristic equipment). That tells me that your desire for realism is hypocritical and serves only as an excuse to defend your own sexism.

Koooaei, it is despicable to degrade either the contributions of women or the professionalism of partner nations in wars we have fought within our own lifetimes. By all means women are disproportionately represented in certain areas. In Canada, despite all trades being opened in 1989. women make up less than one-half of 1 percent of enlisted infantry. That's not surprising given the physical and psychological demands of the job and the social realities of our culture. But let's not disrespect female war vets who have served IRL while others speculate about their performance from a safe distance!

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/011250.html

Sir,
I have just finished a 7 month tour with an Infantry Coy in Zhari, where I patrolled on foot on a regular basis alongside female medics and on a few occasion a female MP. They did the same job, carried the same kit and weapons, marched the same distances, took the same enemy fire and in all ran the same risks as the men. I never saw them flinch, display fear or weakness, and did their work with the same dedication and level of competence as the men present.

I witnessed, on the occasion of a recent deadly IED blast that took the lives of two Canadians, a female medic who was also caught in the explosion be the first to jump up from the ground and administer aid, organise triage and performe her duties in a superb manner despite her injuries from her close proximity to the blast, and knowing well the two deceased soldiers.

After having been in combat alongside Canadian female soldiers, I have determined for direct experience that the women of today make as good soldiers as men.

Women in combat is a politically charged issue, but the facts -- not theory -- is women have been present in all our major wars for the last decade. Women's bodies are not identical to men, but even tier 1 operators like the ODA were attaching women to their teams to handle intelligence collection in Afghanistan (known as the CST). How is it if I want to represent a Canadian infantry platoon or a SF VSO with an attached CST in Afghanistan, I would need a female mini and it would offend nobody. Yet in 40k, which is FAR less realistic and very much a game where we can project any value we desire, people are arguing against the inclusion of women?

http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/NewsArticleView/tabid/7849/Article/577569/jfq-75-blurred-lines-cultural-support-teams-in-afghanistan.aspx

Let's show a little more consideration and respect, and less projection and ignorance, from those of you commenting from a safe distance. Put politely thread has some issues.

 Melissia wrote:

 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.

No one is whining about women coming in to wargaming. I just don't think a productive way of getting women in to wargaming is "make female Space Marines".

Imaginary worlds can be sexist. Factions in imaginary worlds can be sexist. They can also be racist, violent, communist, religiously fanatical, totalitarian, downright evil and so on.

If you don't like the contents of an imaginary world, the solution isn't to tell people they have to make their imaginary worlds conform to your own desires, it's to ask why isn't anyone creating an imaginary world that does, and if they are but it's not popular, why isn't it popular.

Those questions are far more interesting than "why aren't there female Space Marines", a discussion which IMO just distracts and inflames the discussion of gender representation in wargames in general with something that is obviously contentious and not the source of the problems anyway.

GW has no obligation to anyone but their stock holders. If you don't like the product find something else to do.

I think that's an interesting view of the topic.

Of course, it could be that one of the reasons why there are fewer women in wargames is that the current state of wargames is highly male oriented in terms of the units and models available, and that women are looking for more female heroine type of figures (not slut walking male fantasy styleee figures) and the provision of such figures would help entice them into the game.

Obviously historical games are always going to be sexist in terms or representation of female units or else they would be unrealistic. Equally obviously, that doesn't apply to fantasy or SF games.

This leads on to an interesting point, which is why having female space marines is contentious? Why are so many male players against the concept? It seems harmless enough.

To look at this issue from the other angle, is anyone genuinely of the opinion that heroic manly space marine models and their fluff and power in the game are unattractive to boys?

I'm against it because it requires two massive retcons.

Either the tech suddenly always work on woman, the emperor was wrong and 30 years of fact becomes dead in an instance to accommodate some vision of social justice. OR

The imperium makes some massive advance in technology and a process that they barely understand is suddenly is mastered to the point that they fixed a flaw the emperor couldn't fix. The backward techno-phobic empire suddenly isn't

I'm opposed to it because I oppose all retcons unless absolutely needed.

Space Marines are hyper-masculine power fantasy that is so overblown it teeters into parody. That's the joke. But GW has been eliminating the more obvious satirical "tells" in 40k, like CSM with electric guitars and Marbo. I suppose their reasoning is that a subversive tongue-in-cheek universe that can deceive its own younger fans isn't very comforting to investors.

What's happened is a bit like taking Zapp Brannigan from Futurama, and trying to play him in a movie as a straight hero with gravitas rather than a one-note joke about sexist machismo.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I'm against it because it requires two massive retcons.

Either the tech suddenly always work on woman, the emperor was wrong and 30 years of fact becomes dead in an instance to accommodate some vision of social justice. OR

The imperium makes some massive advance in technology and a process that they barely understand is suddenly is mastered to the point that they fixed a flaw the emperor couldn't fix. The backward techno-phobic empire suddenly isn't

I'm opposed to it because I oppose all retcons unless absolutely needed.

These retcons are absolutely needed to introduce female space marines. Why don't you want to introduce female space marines?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think that's an interesting view of the topic.

Of course, it could be that one of the reasons why there are fewer women in wargames is that the current state of wargames is highly male oriented in terms of the units and models available, and that women are looking for more female heroine type of figures (not slut walking male fantasy styleee figures) and the provision of such figures would help entice them into the game.

Obviously historical games are always going to be sexist in terms or representation of female units or else they would be unrealistic. Equally obviously, that doesn't apply to fantasy or SF games.

This leads on to an interesting point, which is why having female space marines is contentious? Why are so many male players against the concept? It seems harmless enough.

To look at this issue from the other angle, is anyone genuinely of the opinion that heroic manly space marine models and their fluff and power in the game are unattractive to boys?

Regarding getting more girls to play I think the best comparison would be see how many women play infinity, which have quite a few female miniatures that are not too over the top in their appearance.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I'm against it because it requires two massive retcons.

Either the tech suddenly always work on woman, the emperor was wrong and 30 years of fact becomes dead in an instance to accommodate some vision of social justice. OR

The imperium makes some massive advance in technology and a process that they barely understand is suddenly is mastered to the point that they fixed a flaw the emperor couldn't fix. The backward techno-phobic empire suddenly isn't

I'm opposed to it because I oppose all retcons unless absolutely needed.

These retcons are absolutely needed to introduce female space marines. Why don't you want to introduce female space marines?

We should honestly just get rid of the rest of the game then. If you are willing to retcon the most notable and recognizable faction in Warhammer40K, who says you won't retcon Dark Eldar because "Wyches portray females badly" or Necrons because "no Lord has been female?"

Because they have never been part of the story. This game has been around since 1987 and solidified into it's current form around 3rd edition. I oppose the change because it's sole purpose is to institute some twisted vision of social justice that everything must be 50 50 at all times. Men have historically and presently always been the ones to go out and fight. The change doesn't add anything to the story, it feels forced and frankly robs a faction of a unique factor.

Update sisters and make some female guard heads but stop trying to change the entire faction just to fit your world view.

In essence then, you don't want female space marines because it would be introducing women into the story.

Can you see how this attitude appears to be sexist?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In essence then, you don't want female space marines because it would be introducing women into the story.

Can you see how this attitude appears to be sexist?

That's a steaming pile of Bull gak. There are females, stop making them a victim of some ridiculous discrimination.

The story has plenty of females. What I oppose is an arbitrary change just to shoe horn more woman in for the sake of more woman. This doesn't add anything to the game and starts a dangerous trend of invalidating everything unique about 40k in order to meet your vision of social justice. How long till wyches need to cover, Necrons need to decide what gender they identify with deep done inside. I oppose changes to a setting I love.

The Imperium is a empire under siege whose greastest advantage is it outnumbers everyone. Why would such an empire subject it's woman to a process that works 1 out of 1000 times at best when it needs more people.

Why people who proclaim that female SM are absolutely needed don't actually ask female players what they think about it?

Perhaps, most of them would despise such a recton, saying it is hurting the fluff in the name of values that have no sense in the universe.
Perhaps they would feel depressed because GW said you can't stick a female head on a SM body.

An in-depth study of the female gamers minority would tell you if your struggle is the right one or if you are just using the real problem of sexism to force your personal taste in a setting perhaps older than you. Any other affimation is just personal appreciation that anyone can attack with reason (for both "sides", if one can use that word), leading to threads longer than the War in Heaven.

Oh, and pages 16 to 18 are just sayin the exact same thing as the very first ones, with less arguments and no real debate though.

Indeed, 18 pages in I think we have thoroughly covered all the bases here...

And it should be "An Irrelevant Non-issue" in the title (although I realize it was edited).

Let's give this a rest for a bit since there's nowhere else to go here - thanks all.