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.

Manchu wrote: Fair play - here we go:

- female xenos (already exist)
- female daemons (already exist)
- female Inquisitors (already exist)
- female super-elite, power-armored warriors (already exist)
- female Chaos/Genestealer cultists
- female IG

Let's take a look at how well women are represented in those categories.

- female xenos: The Dark Eldar do okay with female representation. I don't know what the percentages are, but there are female minis across the range rather than having them pigeonholed into one unit, like their craftworld cousins. Speaking of which, the Eldar have one female unit. The Tau have one demonstrably female mini. The other xenos species are kind of irrelevant physically.
- female daemons: One unit. Though, I suppose Nurgle's daemons would be indistinguishable one way or another.
- female Inquisitors: One mini that dates back to the release of Codex: Witchhunters.
- female super-elite, power-armored warriors: An army with an entirely pewter range, a limited number of minis, substandard rules, and can only be bought online.
- female cultists: none that I've noticed
- female IG: none currently in the range, unless Shaeffer's Last Chancers are still being sold, in which case there's 2 female minis in that set.

Not doing so well with the representation there.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes I did understand your point, but you also used terms like tokenism or sth and then proceeded to say how it only highlights the female underrepresentation and just those terms show that you are at least a bit ideologicaly involved, because only ideologicaly involved, 50/50 or nothing people see "tokenism" as a problem. So, you're not attracting female gamers, you're attracting ideologicaly involved female gamers who are offended by tokenism in games. Not to mention that the you have absolutely no proof that it's tokenism and it highlighting the female underrepresantation that keeps female gamers off 40k, even the feminist ones as we have a few girls/ women here with strong views on the subject but they seem to be playing/ collecting anyway.

The first line in Wikipedia's entry on tokenism is as follows:

Tokenism is the policy and practice of making a perfunctory gesture towards the inclusion of members of minority groups.

So, even setting aside the whole debate on whether there should or should not be female Space Marines, in the setting there is little-to-no reason for the other factions to not have strong female representation, particularly within the Imperial Guard, the Eldar, the Inquisition, and the Tau. No one can argue this is the case. Within those factions, there is one all-female unit, one female IC, and one female special character. Oh, and I suppose there is a smattering of female torsos in the Guardian kit, whch is at least proof the concept can work. There is also one mostly-female force that GW can barely be bothered to support. If the current state of the game doesn't represent tokenism, I don't know what does.

Plumbumbarum wrote:Great riddance, I hate sexist donkey-caves as well. For the sake of balance, let's also get rid of other extremes like feminism.

Yes it indeed seems like you're not coming from high moral grounds and it again sounds a bit like the female rights warriors, they're the same as those hardcore misogyns just on the other side of the barricade, they want to get rid of females and female rights warriors want to get rid of them.

Again, what of the number of leaving misogyns exceeds the number of the incoming females? Your prediction is as good as mine and you said that It would be smart. How would it be smart, if it lost money.

Get real. A lot of sexists may make noise about quitting the game over the inclusion of female Space Marines, but given the time, energy, and money that goes into acquiring, assembling, and painting a 40K army, almost none actually will, because they have too much invested in it to actually do so. Even if they do, so what? GW has made their money off them already.

Plumbumbarum wrote:Oh yes, it's hilarious. What makes it even more hilarious is that I didn't think you're a girl.

Well, you did call me a girl player. So, either that means you thought I was a girl, or you thought calling me a girl player was a put-down. I went with the more generous assumption.

Plumbumbarum wrote:What about this documentary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask ? They cut the funding for Nordic Gender Institute soon after the showing. I'm not saying the documentary is 100% right but it raises a strong case for such differences in sexes and the debate is not as settled as you think it is.

That you highly doubt sth doesn't mean it's not true.

Did you really go looking for a documentary to back your argument?

20 years ago, gamers were arguing that video games and RPGs don't appeal to girls either. Look where we are now.

Plumbumbarum wrote:Listen man, this setting and game is not "exclusionary". There are SoB for anyone who wants to play Imperial girls and that btw includes me if only they're ever released in plastic and reasonably priced.

Exclusionary is another politicaly involved term in this context btw.

Here's an imo great post about the exclusion issue from some old thread:

Code wrote: I think, there are plenty of problems with that approach to fiction.

1) If you take it seriously, then every fictional work ever has to follow this rule. That means, if I create a fictional setting, no matter how far away into the future or how far away into the past, no matter how fundamentally different it is from our world, it HAS to represent 21st century US demographics. This idea alone is pretty ridiculous in my opinion.

2) I'm not even sure, what the problem is.

You say, some people might not be comfortable to escape to a place with a single race and gender imbalace. So apparently they are still confortable escaping to a place, where human life has absolutely no worth and is thrown away by the millions just to have minor military victories. Where there is exactly one religion and if you don't follow it, you're going to get killed. Where people are hoarded to planet earth like animals, so the one true ruler of mankind can consume their souls... but gender imbalance really is a deal breaker!
Doesn't make sense to me.

Others have said, there should be people that look like you, so everyone feels represented. The thing is, there is nobody in 40k that looks like me! I'm 5 ft 7, 155 lbs and wear glasses. Who exactly looks like me. You pick ONE external characteristic, skin color, ignore everything else and then make representation about this one thing. That's arbitrary.

3) Building on the last point: It's a slippery slope. You want black people represented in 40k, fine. But now obviously you need hispanic, asian and arabic people as well, so you put in those. Now you've got all the big ethnicities covered, but what about the smaller ones? What about the native americans and polynesians, that don't feel represented? Ok, so we put in every possible ethnicity, that exist today and we're done right?
But what about the disabled people? Shouldn't they be represented as well? What about transgender people? And gay people? What about people with autism? What about Little People? What about amputees?
So we are not done, until we have a gay 4 ft 5 transgender autistic Space Marine, that may or may not have native alaskan heritage...

4) To me this approach to fiction KILLS immersion. And I'm convinced, that most people of the affected groups feel the same way. When you see this happening (and most of the time it's blatantly obvious) you're starting to think of real-world politics and stop thinking about the world you're trying to experience, which kills the fun.

This is one of the worst problem of "everything is political". TV shows are political, books are political, music is political, movies are political and 40k is political. Ironically the people suffering the most from this, are the ones trying to push this agenda. Can they even enjoy ANY media anymore? How can you enjoy something, when all you're thinking about is "Let's see how well everyone is represented in this"? How can you get lost in a work of fiction, when all you do, is trying to judge how well this supports your political goals?

In short: Keep politics where they belong! There are more than enough real-world issues in need of solving, where your commitment to social justice is well placed and productive (Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, etc.) But if you're taking your politics to places, that are supposed to be a fun escape from the real world, and taking them back into the real world in the process, all you're doing is alienating people and hurting your cause. (especially as it might not even be a problem, see point 2

1: No setting has to be representative of anything anywhere on an artistic level. However, if you want to sell a product, you want to make good faith efforts to appeal to the broadest audience possible, or appeal to an under-served audience (which is why Twilight exploded the way it did). 40K doesn't do either - the art and the minis are almost all white guys, with few to no women.

2: The fictional aspects of the 40K universe are clearly fictional, whereas racism and sexism aren't, thus people not having a problem with the Emperor of Mankind eating souls to stay alive does not de-legitimize people's issues with the lack of non-white/non-male representation in the setting and range.

3: As far as ethnicity goes, one can do a lot with the paint scheme. It's not perfect, as it doesn't get facial features, but it's something the individual has some control over. I'd encourage GW to use some non-white facial sculpts for minis that show faces, and for their artwork and studio paint schemes to depict some non-white people in their armies.

Some of those examples are clearly ridiculous, as a gay person or an autistic person wouldn't physically look any different from anybody else, for instance.

The issue here isn't whether GW is doing a good enough job representing non-whites or females in the setting. The issue is that they're hardly trying at all. I don't expect them to get it exactly right all the time, but I do think they should start making good-faith efforts.

4: That's an easy attitude to cop when one is a part of the population that is over-represented.

Insectum7 wrote:
Now I'm not necessarily advocating it, but just to float the idea: What if, going forward beyond the 41st Millenium, the number of high level threats in the galaxy puts sufficient pressure onto the Imperium that they decide they must swell the numbers of Space Marines, and they have discovered/engineered/modified ye-olde geneseed to accept women into the ranks?

People have often chaffed at the notion that only 1,000,000 Space Marines are enough to secure the galaxy, so on the one hand we swell the number of marines, and on the other, begin accepting female recruits.

None of the past history is wiped away, none of the original chapter histories change, but the setting begins to evolve. This is not to say the Imperium has a new period of enlightenment (though it could, but I like my grimdark), just that the High Lords have decided to risk Great Crusade numbers of Space Marines again out of desperation. Chapters remain restricted, there are no new Primarchs, the "lost legions" remain lost, etc. There are just more marines, and some are female.

Personally, this is something I could get behind if it was handled well.

That could work. Assassins start off as normal humans, as far as I know, but are S4 T4 like Space Marines. So, clearly there are other ways to achieve the same effect.

Gen.Steiner wrote:I understand, from a business perspective, and also from the point of view that the background is mutable, that there is no good argument against female Space Marines.

However. I don't think they're necessary. They may be the poster boys (fnar) of the setting, but if they are the only all-male faction (and the Sisters of Battle are the only all-female faction), you then have fantastic analogues for monks and nuns - which, in fact, is what they are: warrior-monks and warrior-nuns. Meanwhile, the rest of the Imperium is happily gender-mixed, because it clearly is in the background.

I suppose that could also work. If GW improved the female representation in the armies where such is relevant and supported the Sisters of Battle at least as well as, say, the Craftworld Eldar, then that would probably satisfy most people. Sort of in the same vein as Title IX law here in the USA, where public high schools generally don't have a girl's (American) football team, but offer a roughly equivalent alternative (usually field hockey). They'd have to increase the relevance of the Sisters of Battle in the background to go along with it. Wouldn't need too much though, as the Age of Apostasy is almost as major an event as the Horus Heresy.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:That Sisters are inferior to men because they have less stuff than Space Marines, do please consider that Sisters have more than the Scions do. And whilst they could and should have far more in their range, Scions do have less.

I don't think that's a very legitimate counterpoint. It was kind of ridiculous to blow up the Militarum Tempestus into a separate army list. They could have just had a formation detachment in the Astra Militarum book.

 Kriegspiel wrote:

nou wrote:
but because sculpts of all other aspects were designed in times of metal casting, which imposed huge restrictions on possible poses. Especially models with armour holding a two-handed gun were much more difficult to design for old process with a pair of breasts. You can clearly see this difficulty in Necromunda Esher gang, where sculptors had to use any and all possible accents on the model, to make it distinctively feminine. Eldars, because of their light body frame and ritualistic helmets/armour patterns, have very few opportunities other than boobs to accent female models. And as said, plastic Harlequins are 50/50, because there are no such restrictions and all Harlequins look somehow genderless apart from two small bumps on the chest.]

So instead of Esher ugly armored silicon implant

what about using nice tinny tits?

perhaps because of 40K "epic" body proportions compared to Infinity (and sometimes even to their "Inquisitor" counterpart) due to the fact GW minis (basic Orks or IG) shall pass the "50 minis travel to & back from GW local retailer all mixed in shoebox" test
(just look how 2nd hand mini are shown on e-bay)

Anyway the big Rambo like torso of the Catachan are as big as the Esher ones and changing "meat to milk" was not a problem in old time

I also liked the "Imperial Army" female trooper Vaskez of Rogue Trader

gun at hips and (like reconnaissance trooper Kai) helmet on belt "for the picture" was a good way to show blond middle-left hair and 90C breasts

Or you could just look at the Dark Eldar revamp to show how GW's ability to model women has improved?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
He's a Templar, Templars are warrior monks.

But sure, nobody can be a monk unless they look like what you think a monk can look like, correct? Everyone should be a visual representation of what they believe, as set down by.. you?

Who are you arguing against? A version of me that exists only in your head?
I just wrote that we identify him as a warrior monk because he looks just like the Templar and we know that Templars are warrior monks. Now you tell me about how I am wrong for not admitting he is a warrior monk? I can't even.

Your logic completely contradicts itself.

"This looks like a Templar. We know this Templar is a monk because we know Templars to be monks."

"We can't possibly tell the White Scar is a monk, because he doesn't look like a monk."

But we know he's a fething monk because he's a fething Space Marine and the lore says they're monks!

 Pouncey wrote:

Or you could just look at the Dark Eldar revamp to show how GW's ability to model women has improved?

In fact actually none of minis I bought for W40K since the beginning of this year are GW ones,
Sorry for GW, since I wanted only to increase my human armies and was fed up with this male only conversion because metallic SoB are to hard to convert, I found what I wanted elsewhere.
50 minis bought for W40K universe and not a single GW one!

 Kriegspiel wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Or you could just look at the Dark Eldar revamp to show how GW's ability to model women has improved?

In fact actually none of minis I bought for W40K since the beginning of this year are GW ones,
Sorry for GW, since I wanted only to increase my human armies and was fed up with this male only conversion because metallic SoB are to hard to convert, I found what I wanted elsewhere.
50 minis bought for W40K universe and not a single GW one!

Okay.

But we're talking about GW's official models here.

Femarines - we're supposed to believe that making this concept canon would result in a more inclusive hobby and higher sales. But as my learned colleagues have pointed out, not once over the years has anyone shown this to be the case. The fact is, this is just a rationalization for either (a) forcing everyone else to ride your personal hobbyhorse (rare) or (b) making snide remarks about people who recognize how dumb the concept is (common). If we really want to talk about female models in 40k, there is no need to talk about Space Marines at all:

 Manchu wrote:
- female xenos (already exist)
- female daemons (already exist)
- female Inquisitors (already exist)
- female super-elite, power-armored warriors (already exist)
- female Chaos/Genestealer cultists
- female IG

Anyone who actually cares about whether/how GW could introduce more female figures into their ranges ought to be discussing IG and, secondarily, "mortal" Chaos worshippers. The problem with that discussion is, there is nearly unanimous agreement that women should be better represented in those lines; i.e., there's no opportunity to sneer at "misogynists." The only thing to argue about is whether there should be specifically female sculpts or whether there should just be head swaps. Paradoxically, the same people who rabbit on about female Space Marines actually oppose the idea that GW should actually make female IG sculpts.

 Manchu wrote:
Femarines - we're supposed to believe that making this concept canon would result in a more inclusive hobby and higher sales. But as my learned colleagues have pointed out, not once over the years has anyone shown this to be the case. The fact is, this is just a rationalization for either (a) forcing everyone else to ride your personal hobbyhorse (rare) or (b) making snide remarks about people who recognize how dumb the concept is (common). If we really want to talk about female models in 40k, there is no need to talk about Space Marines at all:

 Manchu wrote:
- female xenos (already exist)
- female daemons (already exist)
- female Inquisitors (already exist)
- female super-elite, power-armored warriors (already exist)
- female Chaos/Genestealer cultists
- female IG

Anyone who actually cares about whether/how GW could introduce more female figures into their ranges ought to be discussing IG and, secondarily, "mortal" Chaos worshippers. The problem with that discussion is, there is nearly unanimous agreement that women should be better represented in those lines; i.e., there's no opportunity to sneer at "misogynists." The only thing to argue about is whether there should be specifically female sculpts or whether there should just be head swaps. Paradoxically, the same people who rabbit on about female Space Marines actually oppose the idea that GW should actually make female IG sculpts.

All of this ten times over.

The thing is, everyone in this thread is in agreement on this.

From what i can see, no one wants female space marines because its only going to end up pissing off people and the only real reason that it would happen, would be a change for changes sakes thing.

Everyone wants Female guard option, no one is questioning that.
Everyone wants female cultists, no one is arguing there.

So at this point.....What the Gak are we even arguing about? We are on.....26? Yeah 26 pages of everyone reaching the same agreements and arguing about the technicalities of templars and monks and non GW models.

Does this thread still have a point? Or are we just running in circles here?

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

Manchu wrote: Fair play - here we go:

- female xenos (already exist)
- female daemons (already exist)
- female Inquisitors (already exist)
- female super-elite, power-armored warriors (already exist)
- female Chaos/Genestealer cultists
- female IG

Let's take a look at how well women are represented in those categories.

- female xenos: The Dark Eldar do okay with female representation. I don't know what the percentages are, but there are female minis across the range rather than having them pigeonholed into one unit, like their craftworld cousins. Speaking of which, the Eldar have one female unit. The Tau have one demonstrably female mini. The other xenos species are kind of irrelevant physically.
- female daemons: One unit. Though, I suppose Nurgle's daemons would be indistinguishable one way or another.
- female Inquisitors: One mini that dates back to the release of Codex: Witchhunters.
- female super-elite, power-armored warriors: An army with an entirely pewter range, a limited number of minis, substandard rules, and can only be bought online.
- female cultists: none that I've noticed
- female IG: none currently in the range, unless Shaeffer's Last Chancers are still being sold, in which case there's 2 female minis in that set.

Not doing so well with the representation there.

To be fair, a lot of these arent quite as one sided here. With respect to the Eldar, they have female HQ's and mixed gender Guardians as well, and some of the other units you probably wouldnt be able to tell under the armor. Likewise with Tau, gender could be anything underneath carapace armor or in a Suit of some sort. Daemons have several units with female characteristics (Daemonettes, Seekers, Keeper of Secrets) but most really aren't gendered at all. Nurglings, Horrors, Furies, Screamers, etc dont reall have a gender. There's not much more clearly "male" daemon stuff mainly Bloodthirsters, GuO's, maybe Bloodletters and Plague Bearers (though they appear to lack anything distinctively male or female, mainly they just have a more "male" physical upper body build)

 Azreal13 wrote:
But we know he's a fething monk because he's a fething Space Marine and the lore says they're monks!

The White Scars argument is bad faith from top to bottom. There is more than one level of Space Marine culture. At the highest level, they are brotherhoods of warrior monks. At the Chapter-level, they are pretty varied based on a number of factors, not to mentoin that the White Scars, being a legion, are a special case. Jaghatai landed on Planet Mongolia; therefore he was not exposed to the pseudo-Catholic institutions of the Imperium until after the Emperor found him. Even so - there is no evidence that women served in the Khan's force before the Emperor arrived. Gee, it's almost like more than one culture might have a tradition of excluding women from certain military roles. Anyhow, once the Khan and the Emperor were reunited, the Khan would have at that point adopted whatever Imperial customs went along with having a Space Marine legion. Now whether the Khan previously recruited female soldiers and could not after taking command of his Legion is immaterial. The point is that, Mongolian overlay or no, White Scars are Space Marines. As you say, they are warrior monks no matter whether they wear Christian-esque priestly vestments, wolf pelts, or the Khan's fur-trimmed high heels (not that anyone bothers to mention those in these threads).

 Pouncey wrote:

I know that eventually the tabletop wargaming hobby is going to stop being a boys club and have to include women, and a lot of women introduced to 40k have their first question being, "Where are all the women?"

I might have an answer since W40K universe is inspired by Dune (Emperor God, Sardaukar Space Marines,...)
maybe 99% of human female are just "Axlotl tanks" locked in bunker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_technology_in_the_Dune_universe#Axlotl_tank

This would explain how Imperium can handle so many losses (Armageddon War, Abbadon black Crusade,...)
They literary produce people (like in Brave New World or as for clone trooper in Star Wars or 40K miniatures in GW factory )
Sister of Battle are an exception since they represent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Gesserit

All the other female on battlefield maybe transgender.
(If not why they say CallidUS and not CallidA for the female assassin looking like a BDSM fetichist drag-queen? since in Latin US suffix is masculine and A feminine: Marius/Maria, Claudius/Claudia)
This also explain why you don't see any children (except perhaps ratskins born "naturally") even within cultist, rebel etc. while in the real world there are (too) many soldier-children
(around 250.000 in 2015 http://www.slideshare.net/chrisrhyss/good-reasons-to-kill-global-data-on-homicide-intentional-violence-2015 )

 Manchu wrote:
. Paradoxically, the same people who rabbit on about female Space Marines actually oppose the idea that GW should actually make female IG sculpts.

From what I read in this thread, those who rabbit on about female Space Marine actually think that female IG sculpts and decent support of the Sister woudn't be enough. They don't oppose it, on the contrary. They want it and some more. Please show me where I might be wrong on this issue.

@Vaktathi - so in other words, even where gender could be a non-issue/impossible to visually discern, GW has even so gone out of its way to include obviously female sculpts

now, more could and should be done - and the most relevant categories are IG and Chaos/Genestealer Cultists

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
So, you would censor all rape out of the art? What about car crashes? Beatings? War? Death? Cancer? Abductions? Anything traumatic really?

In case you didn't notice it, there are no graphic depiction of rape in 40k. That's for a reason.
And generally speaking, the universe is so over-the-top and excessive in its horror that I really don't think much people in countries that aren't at war will find anything that reminds them of their actual struggle. People don't die of cancer in 40k, they die of the terrible Nurgle plague and rise up as zombies!

It's not the first time you seem to have trouble following conversation. It's you who brought rape as an example and I asked about your stance on other heavy content in art in general. It would help you maybe if you quoted a few sentences back instead of quoting the way that makes your answers look as good as possible.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
My grandfather

Not you, then. Are you afraid that some Commissar is going to get you? If not, it's not mirroring something that you have to deal with IRL. It's something that other people had to deal with a long time ago.
If you were currently living under constant fear of being executed by the Soviets, I don't think you would enjoy Commissars .

Lol. I'd love to see you expand your point on Jewish descendants of concentrations camps prisoners, I guess they can't be ever offended because it's not them. Ridiculous, by that logic a cool portrayal concentration camp guard who loves shooting Jews is ok, why don't you go to Israel and ask them if they are afraid that Adolf will get them or what. Btw nice example of you having zero empathy for others, something you tirelessly accuse your disputants of.

Also, I'd like to politely point you to one of my sentences above, just imagine that quoted alone, the possibilities. I think I start to understand why you like it so much heh.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Sure it is political, which doesn't mean you have to constantly over-analyse and demand changes for every bit that offends your sensibilities. If everyone did that, there would be no 40k because it's offensive all around.

Yeah, I agree, GW should choose the people they are okay with being offensive too. I certainly never meant that nothing should be offensive to anyone. If 40k is offensive to religious bigots, for instance, I am perfectly fine with this.
I really don't know why so many people seem to use that argument you put forward of “not being offensive to anyone” when actually I never heard anyone say that anything like that. It's a weird strawman.

Thank you man, I always claimed that all those leftist sensibilities are super selective and they are just as bigoted and hateful as all those facists, racists etc just against different groups, and now you're so beautifuly shameless about it. You just made my day.

So, why is it okay now for 40k to be offensive to religious bigots, but not okay to be offensive to leftist fanatic? Because you say so? You just confirmed that your case is worthless as long as it's about discrimination etc.

=Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl 699785 8857311 ce18907f2b7467dbc35bca704e1f0dff.jpg]

Plumbumbarum wrote:
No they're not just canvas. They all follow and believe in the emperor of mankind, they are all male, all warrior monks. The basic idea is warrior monk, then comes the flavour that in some cases takes it further from that reference but it's 40k and not entirely coherent heh, still warrior monks though.

Following the Emperor of Mankind is literally EVERYONE in the whole Imperium. That… doesn't really set them apart from a blank canvas. The fact they are all male is, well, the ridiculous arbitrary restriction that I want removed to make them a better blank canvas. And the warrior monk part is totally inexistent in the description, background, look, etc, of so many Chapters that constantly putting it forward is becoming tiresome.

Yes, they are warrior monks no matter how strongly you will hang on to your space wolves example. The basic idea, the structure it's all there, just GW apparently sees nothing wrong with this guys being monks and crazy vikings the same time, just like they don't see a problem with Dark Angels being both monks and native americans in space etc. It's not super coherent but it will only get worse with female SM, further diluting any identity there.

So I'm just going to avoid the proverbial minefield that is some of the discussion in this thread and just say that I'd like to see more diversity in the factions that are noted to have such diversity (Guard, Eldar, Dark Eldar, and mortal Chaos followers come to mind).

Dark Eldar are actually pretty ok though in terms of diversity, with many of their kits, barring Incubi, Wracks and a few of their HQ choices (although the HQ's can be for the most part kitbashed with other kits to change the gender if one so chooses).

Eldar, Guard, and mortal Chaos followers could use more though. Especially Eldar with how both males and females are supposedly equally represented in their military. And with Guard there are noted regiments that are mixed gender (Tanith First and Only and the Valhallan 397th come to mind), and even some that are all female.

epronovost wrote:
Please show me where I might be wrong on this issue.

Go back to about page 14 of this thread and read til about page 19 or 20.

 Vaktathi wrote:

- female daemons: One unit. Though, I suppose Nurgle's daemons would be indistinguishable one way or another.

well..

+
http://www.beastsofwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Prodos-SC-pg3.jpg
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammerfb/images/f/f7/Nurgling_is_my_spirit_animal_by_maylamorro-d4hgr34.png

 War Kitten wrote:
Dark Eldar are actually pretty ok though in terms of diversity

In terms of including female sculpts, Deldar are a great example of why GW should have no trouble whatsoever including female sculpts in an updated "Cadian" kit.

What about female part in Chaos Obliterator or Terminator kit too?
http://www.paintofwar.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Space-Crusade-mabs.jpg

 Kriegspiel wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

- female daemons: One unit. Though, I suppose Nurgle's daemons would be indistinguishable one way or another.

well..

+
http://www.beastsofwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Prodos-SC-pg3.jpg
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammerfb/images/f/f7/Nurgling_is_my_spirit_animal_by_maylamorro-d4hgr34.png

Tits are not female-exclusive property. Moob Pride!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriegspiel wrote:
What about female part in Chaos Obliterator or Terminator kit too?
http://www.paintofwar.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Space-Crusade-mabs.jpg

YES.

 Manchu wrote:
Femarines - we're supposed to believe that making this concept canon would result in a more inclusive hobby and higher sales. But as my learned colleagues have pointed out, not once over the years has anyone shown this to be the case. The fact is, this is just a rationalization for either (a) forcing everyone else to ride your personal hobbyhorse (rare) or (b) making snide remarks about people who recognize how dumb the concept is (common). If we really want to talk about female models in 40k, there is no need to talk about Space Marines at all:

 Manchu wrote:
- female xenos (already exist)
- female daemons (already exist)
- female Inquisitors (already exist)
- female super-elite, power-armored warriors (already exist)
- female Chaos/Genestealer cultists
- female IG

Anyone who actually cares about whether/how GW could introduce more female figures into their ranges ought to be discussing IG and, secondarily, "mortal" Chaos worshippers. The problem with that discussion is, there is nearly unanimous agreement that women should be better represented in those lines; i.e., there's no opportunity to sneer at "misogynists." The only thing to argue about is whether there should be specifically female sculpts or whether there should just be head swaps. Paradoxically, the same people who rabbit on about female Space Marines actually oppose the idea that GW should actually make female IG sculpts.

I think we can call the first half of this thread an argument between a misogynist and people in favor of female models, actually...

You can go read it if you want, but believe me, the only two explanations are that that guy was trolling this thread hard, or deliberately being heavily misogynistic. Either way, it ended when a moderator threatened him with a ban.

I lean toward the former explanation on the grounds that it felt more like he was just arguing to incite a reaction than actually advocating the things he was saying, but... Poe's Law...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Sure it is political, which doesn't mean you have to constantly over-analyse and demand changes for every bit that offends your sensibilities. If everyone did that, there would be no 40k because it's offensive all around.

Yeah, I agree, GW should choose the people they are okay with being offensive too. I certainly never meant that nothing should be offensive to anyone. If 40k is offensive to religious bigots, for instance, I am perfectly fine with this.
I really don't know why so many people seem to use that argument you put forward of “not being offensive to anyone” when actually I never heard anyone say that anything like that. It's a weird strawman.

Thank you man, I always claimed that all those leftist sensibilities are super selective and they are just as bigoted and hateful as all those facists, racists etc just against different groups, and now you're so beautifuly shameless about it. You just made my day.

So, why is it okay now for 40k to be offensive to religious bigots, but not okay to be offensive to leftist fanatic? Because you say so? You just confirmed that your case is worthless as long as it's about discrimination etc.

Can we just leave the politics out of it and say that offending bigots of all types is something we shouldn't be afraid of doing as a species?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriegspiel wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

I know that eventually the tabletop wargaming hobby is going to stop being a boys club and have to include women, and a lot of women introduced to 40k have their first question being, "Where are all the women?"

I might have an answer since W40K universe is inspired by Dune (Emperor God, Sardaukar Space Marines,...)
maybe 99% of human female are just "Axlotl tanks" locked in bunker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_technology_in_the_Dune_universe#Axlotl_tank

This would explain how Imperium can handle so many losses (Armageddon War, Abbadon black Crusade,...)
They literary produce people (like in Brave New World or as for clone trooper in Star Wars or 40K miniatures in GW factory )
Sister of Battle are an exception since they represent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Gesserit

All the other female on battlefield maybe transgender.
(If not why they say CallidUS and not CallidA for the female assassin looking like a BDSM fetichist drag-queen? since in Latin US suffix is masculine and A feminine: Marius/Maria, Claudius/Claudia)
This also explain why you don't see any children (except perhaps ratskins born "naturally") even within cultist, rebel etc. while in the real world there are (too) many soldier-children
(around 250.000 in 2015 http://www.slideshare.net/chrisrhyss/good-reasons-to-kill-global-data-on-homicide-intentional-violence-2015 )

Or you could just realize that there are probably 20 quadrillion people in the Imperium, 200 billion in the IG, and only 1 in 100,000 humans is actually in the IG so replenishing millions of casualties every day isn't a big deal if you just let those quadrillions of people form normal sexual relationships on their own.

In the 40k universe, a planet like modern day Earth could get totally wiped out and no one would even really notice or care.

@Pouncey - I don't doubt that there are people with misogynistic attitudes playing 40k and posting on Dakka Dakka. To the extent that someone argues that the existing 40k setting is wrong or bad or unbelievable, etc., because women serve in the IG as a matter of canon, they may very well be evincing such attitudes. But proposing that XYZ must be added to the canon, and if it isn't added then the setting is misogynistic, or that anyone who opposes adding XYZ is misogynistic, I think those are presumptively bad faith arguments at best and thinly disguised personal attacks at worst. And when I say "presumptively," I really mean "based on seeing these 'arguments' on a regular basis over the past seven years."

 Manchu wrote:
@Pouncey - I don't doubt that there are people with misogynistic attitudes playing 40k and posting on Dakka Dakka. To the extent that someone argues that the existing 40k setting is wrong or bad or unbelievable, etc., because women serve in the IG as a matter of canon, they may very well be evincing such attitudes. But proposing that XYZ must be added to the canon, and if it isn't added then the setting is misogynistic, or that anyone who opposes adding XYZ is misogynistic, I think those are presumptively bad faith arguments at best and thinly disguised personal attacks at worst. And when I say "presumptively," I really mean "based on seeing these 'arguments' on a regular basis over the past seven years."

Hm. Maybe my perception on those arguments has been altered by being a person in favor of more female models who only wants to add them where they make sense for the lore.

Like, the DKoK, for example, shouldn't have any female minis. They've got lore about being a male-only Regiment. Space Marines have tons of lore involving being male only, so they should stay male only. And I wouldn't personally call anyone who opposes changing the existing lore to make women appear in the lore where the existing lore says they don't, misogynistic, any more than I would call someone who opposes making male Sororitas a misandrist.

I mean, the entire argument for having more common female Eldar and IG models is that they exist in the lore already, so wanting to create lore to justify things that aren't currently justified would be... I think disingenuous would be the best term, really.

Manchu wrote: Anyone who actually cares about whether/how GW could introduce more female figures into their ranges ought to be discussing IG and, secondarily, "mortal" Chaos worshippers. The problem with that discussion is, there is nearly unanimous agreement that women should be better represented in those lines; i.e., there's no opportunity to sneer at "misogynists." The only thing to argue about is whether there should be specifically female sculpts or whether there should just be head swaps. Paradoxically, the same people who rabbit on about female Space Marines actually oppose the idea that GW should actually make female IG sculpts.

I don't think I can take that at face value. I think I'm going to need you to quote actual posts in a way that allows me to see the post is genuine before I can believe it.

I find it hard to believe anyone seriously thinks GW shouldn't do female minis for ranges like the Eldar, Tau, and Guard. It's actually baffling that they haven't done so already, even if only to add a little visual variety to armies where the player is going to have massive amounts of visually identical minis (ie, Guard). Increasing female representation in those armies is not controversial at all.

The question is, is that enough? Can GW afford to keep Space Marines male-only while offering Sisters as a counter-balancing alternative? Sure, if GW is willing to put in the effort. Give the Sisters an updated set of rules making them as good to play as Space Marines. Update the range to plastic and expand it, including a greater variety of units. Feature Sisters more prominently in the fluff. Maybe have Sisters come to the aid of a beleaguered Space Marine force in a campaign. Have a starter box that features Sisters as the Imperial army.

The thing is, GW's past behavior doesn't inspire a lot of confidence they're going to do any of those things. There are currently 6 full Space Marine dexes (SMs, BAs, DAs, SWs, GKs, and now Deathwatch) with fully supported plastic ranges, while Sisters have a sub-par set of rules and an overpriced, limited all-metal range that GW doesn't even bother to stock in their stores. It doesn't take a genius to look at these things and see they're unequal. As for starter sets, so far there's been SMs vs DE, then SMs vs Orks, and now SMs vs Chaos. I don't think there's even been a Guard-based starter set, much less a SoB-one.

Pouncey wrote:
Can we just leave the politics out of it and say that offending bigots of all types is something we shouldn't be afraid of doing as a species?

Pouncey wins the thread.

tl;dr We could do with upgrade sprues at least for more female IG and Eldar, but we do not want fluff conflicts.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I don't think I can take that at face value. I think I'm going to need you to quote actual posts in a way that allows me to see the post is genuine before I can believe it.

Um .. who are you and why do I care if you can believe XYZ? Folks ITT have argued against GW making female IG sculpts instead of just doing headswaps. I think I'm going to need you to follow the thread for yourself. For my part, I think headswaps are a terrible idea. If you want more women in the line, then scultp some figures of women. Simple as that. Already put into practice with Deldar.

 Pouncey wrote:
wanting to create lore to justify things that aren't currently justified would be... I think disingenuous would be the best term, really

I agree in the context of Femarines, but not generally. Take the Necron example, where there was a lot of push back. But what made that feasible is that, as it was, the Necrons really lacked extensive background information - they were sold as a mysterious threat. But being mysterious doesn't provide much grist for the mill when it comes to designing new models. So the Necrons were given a whole raft more fluff and lots of new models to go with it. Best of all, if you like your Crons mindless killing machines then you can still do that with 100% fluff justification as some Tombs just lose their minds over the aeons.

A note about Tau. They actually have less sexual dimorphism than either Eldar or Humans. I've heard the only apparent difference between a male and female Tau of the same Caste, if fully clothed even in a bodysuit, is the shape of a slit on the Tau's forehead.

A headswap would be just fine for them, and I've heard that the revamped Fire Warriors kit even comes with bare heads with the female slit instead of the male slit. And with helmets you'd never be able to tell the difference even if the armor were completely form-fitting.

So... does that mean, if what I heard about the Fire Warriors kit is true, that the issue of female Tau is... already solved?

 Pouncey wrote:
I've heard the only apparent difference between a male and female Tau of the same Caste, if fully clothed even in a bodysuit, is the shape of a slit on the Tau's forehead.

Just curious, heard from where?

 Manchu wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I don't think I can take that at face value. I think I'm going to need you to quote actual posts in a way that allows me to see the post is genuine before I can believe it.

Um .. who are you and why do I care if you can believe XYZ? Folks ITT have argued against GW making female IG sculpts instead of just doing headswaps. I think I'm going to need you to follow the thread for yourself. For my part, I think headswaps are a terrible idea. If you want more women in the line, then scultp some figures of women. Simple as that. Already put into practice with Deldar.

 Pouncey wrote:
wanting to create lore to justify things that aren't currently justified would be... I think disingenuous would be the best term, really

I agree in the context of Femarines, but not generally. Take the Necron example, where there was a lot of push back. But what made that feasible is that, as it was, the Necrons really lacked extensive background information - they were sold as a mysterious threat. But being mysterious doesn't provide much grist for the mill when it comes to designing new models. So the Necrons were given a whole raft more fluff and lots of new models to go with it. Best of all, if you like your Crons mindless killing machines then you can still do that with 100% fluff justification as some Tombs just lose their minds over the aeons.

Well, with Necrons, if the species that became them had females, which I think became canon at some point because there's a female Necron character somewhere, and their mechanical selves recall their past lives at all and retain any of their personality, it's well within lore that they might have their female members have a more feminine robot form and their male members have a more masculine robot form.

I mean, if IRL, we find a way to transfer our consciousness into robot bodies, we're probably going to be making those bodies appear not only generally humanoid, but include human sexual dimorphism as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
I've heard the only apparent difference between a male and female Tau of the same Caste, if fully clothed even in a bodysuit, is the shape of a slit on the Tau's forehead.

Just curious, heard from where?

DakkaDakka.

Like almost everything I know about the lore.

 Just Tony wrote:
Egalitarians are anti-sexist people

If you aren't a feminist, you cannot be an egalitarian. Posts like this are utter garbage.

The tau ghost keel kit has a female head.

shadowsun obviously has a alt bare head as well.

i dont recall the new firewarrior/breacher squad having one but a quick gander at the sprue could yield an answer.