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.

 Backspacehacker wrote:


I mean honestly the models from Victoria, block out the heads, you cant tell if they are male or female models. (As it should be because the armor is standard.)

If you look closely you can see that their armor tapers in more towards the waist marking them as feminine. But on a table top in a game I doubt anyone will be looking that closely.

Their body frames are also bit smaller.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:


I mean honestly the models from Victoria, block out the heads, you cant tell if they are male or female models. (As it should be because the armor is standard.)

If you look closely you can see that their armor tapers in more towards the waist marking them as feminine. But on a table top in a game I doubt anyone will be looking that closely.

Please understand when i say this, this is not me trying to attack you directly.

With that said, if the backing argument boils down to, "Well if you look really closely, you will notice this small detail you would have missed if i did not point it out." Its not a very good way to back it, know what i mean?

Looking at it from a business argument, do you really think GW is going to recreate models to give them a slightly smaller waist? The best hope is for them to make a female guard upgrade spreu, which would be just heads, maybe a chest or two, and that would be it, the only other way you could make them look female would be grossly exaggerated feminine feature, or then running around in tank tops, which again, armor.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
If victoria miniatures can pull it off, then theoretically so could the "greatest miniatures company in the world"

Emphasis on theoretically, of course. GW is a much bigger company than Victoria Miniatures, and that can bring both benefits and complications when thinking and creating new product lines.

I for one would like to see more Imperial Guard regiments? Remember how we had Steel Legion, Vostroyans, Last Chancers, First and Only, Tallarn and Mordians? That was awesome. Now its just Cadians and Catachans.

Agreed, I'd like to see those return. But again, you have the same potential complications with making a squad of female Guardsmen, not to mention the fact that, if we were to get those regiments back, people would want them to cast females for every regiment.

Eh, it depends.
IIRC, Vostroyans recruited from first born sons, and I think Mordians don't recruit women. Not sure about Valhallans, Tallarn and Steel Legion though, and I think there are supposed to be women in the First and Only and Last Chancers regiments, albeit not as numerous as men.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:


I mean honestly the models from Victoria, block out the heads, you cant tell if they are male or female models. (As it should be because the armor is standard.)

If you look closely you can see that their armor tapers in more towards the waist marking them as feminine. But on a table top in a game I doubt anyone will be looking that closely.

Its possible though. I've had people pick up my minis (with permission, and only from the death pile ) to have a closer look at the details, and I know I've done the same.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
If victoria miniatures can pull it off, then theoretically so could the "greatest miniatures company in the world"

Emphasis on theoretically, of course. GW is a much bigger company than Victoria Miniatures, and that can bring both benefits and complications when thinking and creating new product lines.

I for one would like to see more Imperial Guard regiments? Remember how we had Steel Legion, Vostroyans, Last Chancers, First and Only, Tallarn and Mordians? That was awesome. Now its just Cadians and Catachans.

Agreed, I'd like to see those return. But again, you have the same potential complications with making a squad of female Guardsmen, not to mention the fact that, if we were to get those regiments back, people would want them to cast females for every regiment.

Eh, it depends.
IIRC, Vostroyans recruited from first born sons, and I think Mordians don't recruit women. Not sure about Valhallans, Tallarn and Steel Legion though, and I think there are supposed to be women in the First and Only and Last Chancers regiments, albeit not as numerous as men.

Casting steel legion females is kinda pointless. Seeing as how in lore, steel legion have to wear gasmasks and sealed suits because their planet is so toxic, there would be no way to pick out men and women. Additionally, they are a primarily vehicle based so.

Per the Cain books, Valhallans definitely field female regiments.

There are female Steel Legionnaires, but the greatcoat + gasmask argument is a good one.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
Per the Cain books, Valhallans definitely field female regiments.

Yeah, I vaguely remember something about female valhallan regiments from those books now. Iirc, they tend to be all women or all men, with Cain's regiment being the exception.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, I vaguely remember something about female valhallan regiments from those books now. Iirc, they tend to be all women or all men, with Cain's regiment being the exception.

Both had been mangled pretty bad and were merged in order to produce one full regiment.

As it turned out, a relatively well supplied regiment that the quill-pushers somehow kept mistaking for two regiments.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Sure I need to go now and I'm a bit late but I'll do so later. But I'm afraid I don't have any spectacular wisdom in stock, sorry ^^'.

So, I guess most people tend to automatically assume male as the default for wargame characters and go with it unless they have some very specific reason so choose otherwise, will go with male. Shadowsun is a shiny glowing example of this NOT happening though, but for instance Jain-Zhar is female because Banshees are female in the mythology, Lelith is female because, well, “sexy → female” (another unconscious or sometime conscious bias), etc. Meanwhile Creed, Eldrad, Aun'Va, and so on are all male for no specific reason. They are male, imho, because nobody is the design process even asked himself or herself “What gender should that character be?”.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
When ever this topic gets brought up it always ends the exact same way

We want female models
Ok well sisters of battle are coming out.

No in guard
Alright well, they could jsut do female heads.

No female models!
well the only way to define that would be breasts which with armor on you would not notice.

at which point we end up in a downward spiral of back and forth bickering, and cheap shots and ultimately arrive at the same conclusion.

The only way to make models that are distinguished as female other then female heads would be sexualized armor, which would then get bitched about, but then when you make it normal that gets bitched about because you cant tell they are female, which gets bitch about, so you sexualize the armor which gets bitched about, so you... ect ect.

I mean honestly the models from Victoria, block out the heads, you cant tell if they are male or female models. (As it should be because the armor is standard.)


So like always, this thread makes no progression, only makes people salty, and ends in a bitching contest.

Different people means different opinions. Personally if GW would include models similar to the Victoria ones in their official sprue for guards, extends the mixed gender approach they took for Dark Eldars into Craftworld Eldars beside just guardians, keep doing female head for Tau, add some female head for marines and introduce female SC and more female characters in the fluff of each of those codex I really would be perfectly happy.

I'm ok with it being an upgrade Sprue, because like I pointed out, aside from hair, you can't tell those Victoria miniatures are even female, unless you point it out.

The one thing that's a hard stance though is female space marines, just no, because no matter how you try and broach it, it's gonna get shoe horned. We have sisters, which thank god they are finally coming back because now I don't have to listen to people crying for them.

Female space marines has been talked into the ground, and it always ends up with the side wanting them, using a very VERY bad argument for them. Their for argument is always , wel why not?" Not an argument for them.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I'm ok with it being an upgrade Sprue, because like I pointed out, aside from hair, you can't tell those Victoria miniatures are even female, unless you point it out.

Well, I would like this to be included stock, and I don't see how the fact you personally won't notice change anything?

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Female space marines has been talked into the ground, and it always ends up with the side wanting them, using a very VERY bad argument for them. Their for argument is always , wel why not?" Not an argument for them.

That seems like a very very good argument to me. I mean, if you cannot beat that argument it means there are literally no argument for not adding them.

Price, look at deathwatch stuff, they upped stuff by like 5 bucks just for a gakky upgrade Sprue

Lack of something does not mean we should add it. We don't have a faction of pacifist marines that just want to spread love and harmony with hugs and kisses. Why not make them?

There is very good reason, it's been argued how the male body is predisposed to be a fighter, they bodies are designed to handle it.

The best reasoning for it I have heard is that by allowing female space marines there runs the possibility of them eventually realizing they don't need humanity anymore, at that point they could forgo the sterilization process in making marines, and breed naturally, at that point, they would surpass humans, which is not what they are for, they are the protectors of humanity not meant to replace them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also to add, the suggestion of female space marines, while not a good one, is a legitamite idea, but the proof of burden rests on the person presenting the idea. And the, "why not" is not a valid argument or reasoning for them. You need to prove to the community that female space marines are a logical and reasonable decision to put into the game officially.

You know what? if they have some bare female heads on a sprue and someone wants to make female Space Marines, it doesn't change the game in one way, shape, or form. Now in some fluff heavy thing, absolutely not.

 Just Tony wrote:
You know what? if they have some bare female heads on a sprue and someone wants to make female Space Marines, it doesn't change the game in one way, shape, or form. Now in some fluff heavy thing, absolutely not.

On the table, sure not a problem, but ham fisting them into lore, not so much.

 Salted Diamond wrote:
You have some places where it's 100% equal. On Cadia for example "the birth rate and the recriutment rates on Cadia are synonymous" and "All Cadians - no matter their age, gender or station - must know how to fight" (AM codex pg 14)

Of course, the one thing people don't realize with this quote is that the ideal reproductive ages and the ideal military recruitment ages are identical.

Which means reproduction on Cadia is state-run, too. As is childcare and education. Say hellow to Teacher-Sergeant Baker and Daycare-Corporal Peterson.

There's a giant logistical apparatus behind any combat force. You can't just have a force that is 100% infantry and tankers and artillery, etc. Women on Cadia probably end up like women in the IDF. Given basic training similar to the men, and then largely stashed away in rear echelon administrative and logistical occupations that are necessary for the running of a world where military mobilization is near-100%.

Consider the Soviet Union, for example. The vast majority of women who served int he WW2 Red Army served as drivers, or radio operators, etc. Jobs that didn't require any significant physical capability, but could free up a man for the front lines. Total Soviet mobilization was just about only a quarter of their population. All the stories you read about the exploits of female soldiers were largely propaganda works by the Soviets. To be fair, most of the numbers you read about their male war heroes were ridiculously inflated by the propagandists too.

If the Cadians are mobilizing essentially 100% of their military-aged population, it just means that basically every task is has been "militarized", and all citizens are considered military Reservists.

The one thing the galaxy has no lack of is people. It's why I've suggested nobody would bother trying to create female Space Marines. It's adding and unnecessary complication to a process that has no shortage of recruits. When you consider that there are 1,000ish Chapters of 1,000ish Space Marines, even with the majority of male children being incompatible with the geneseed process, a single Hive World could supply every Space Marine in the galaxy. With that said, given the significantly more lax regulations on Imperial Guardsmen, you can see why "man"power is the one thing that will very rarely influence recruiting decisions. Imperial planets are probably happy to supply Imperial Guard regiments. People are the one resource they always have enough of.

None of this is to shut down the idea of female Guardsmen. It doesn't take a ton of mental hurdles to explain why your regiment has some ladyfighters in it. But in a galaxy where men are still society's most expendable resource, they're going to continue to be expended in favor of a valuable social resource like a fertile woman. Which also means that the biological specialization we've seen in human evolution that makes men larger and more robust is unlikely to have changed.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Sure I need to go now and I'm a bit late but I'll do so later. But I'm afraid I don't have any spectacular wisdom in stock, sorry ^^'.

So, I guess most people tend to automatically assume male as the default for wargame characters and go with it unless they have some very specific reason so choose otherwise, will go with male. Shadowsun is a shiny glowing example of this NOT happening though, but for instance Jain-Zhar is female because Banshees are female in the mythology, Lelith is female because, well, “sexy → female” (another unconscious or sometime conscious bias), etc. Meanwhile Creed, Eldrad, Aun'Va, and so on are all male for no specific reason. They are male, imho, because nobody is the design process even asked himself or herself “What gender should that character be?”.

I personally haven't even considered the gender of most characters in 40k and other sci fi universes till threads like this have pointed this out. Is that because I'm male? I doubt it; it's more like I don't see the significance of the character's gender most of the time - I focus on the character themselves. While I will say that I do notice and appreciate main casts of characters having a mix of characters of all backgrounds and both genders, most of the time I find this irrelevant next to the character's actions both alone and when mixed into the rest of the cast.

Perhaps this is very well an unconscious bias flowing through 40k, but I do feel that a character is typically made based on how likeable or hated (in a good way) they are to the reader. Their gender, their race and their background can augment their likeability by the reader, but only after the good character has been made, if that makes sense. That's how I see it at least.

I personally am writing a story involving a female Inquisitor and a female Farseer, as well as quite a few female supporting roles. I can't tell you exactly why I chose to run them as females instead of males, other than to possibly use their sex disposition as a way to direct the story and their character in what I believe to be a male dominated universe. Having a female perspective can certainly have a different effect over having a male one, but again, making the character good is far more important than trivial information that can be read by the reader from simple observation.

Hopefully that all makes sense; it is 12:30 in the morning. A lot of people would say a scenario such as 40k's in terms of gender balance is not down to coincidence in terms of its stories. I personally think it's a coincidence that all the writers had the same fixation on what they either consciously or unconsciously wanted their character's gender to be, rather than the idea that the favouritism of a male character is prevalent in wargame universes.

G.A

 General Annoyance wrote:
Is that because I'm male? I doubt it; it's more like I don't see the significance of the character's gender most of the time - I focus on the character themselves.

Being male is why you don't notice it. You're used to male names/pronouns being the default, so you don't notice it when there are few/no female names/pronouns. Trust me, women notice these things.

 Hawky wrote:
So, if GW makes some of their faction complete male, it means they are anti-female?

Please, let me have a laugh...
You (somehow) forgot: Howling Banshees, Wyches

Ehm... sorry to be spoil but Howling Banshees and wyches have both female AND male in their ranks... only that male howling banshees are drag-queens

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, I vaguely remember something about female valhallan regiments from those books now. Iirc, they tend to be all women or all men, with Cain's regiment being the exception.

Both had been mangled pretty bad and were merged in order to produce one full regiment.

As it turned out, a relatively well supplied regiment that the quill-pushers somehow kept mistaking for two regiments.

It also helps having a "Hero of the Imperium" in your ranks and that a Inquisitor considers you "useful and mainly trustworthy"

Personally as I see it - the table top is a version of action movies - and there are plenty of females in those.

Again some of my go to Sci-fi war films are Starship Trooper and Aliens - anyone not see the women like Vasquez in those or think they are not bad ass?

There is a large body of supporting information that shows us how important women are, some good, some bad, in the universe,

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
You're the one making the claim, so it's your responsibility to support your assertions (accusations).

You know, that's precisely why I don't want to have a conversation with you. I pointed out some unsupported assumption you made (i.e. “[SC] don't have models not because they are female but for some other reason”). You made this assumption implicitly when you implied that “[SC] were removed because they had no model” was in direct contradiction with “[SC] were removed because they were female”. I merely pointed out that you didn't bring anything to support it. But rather than supporting it, you now play the “burden of proof” game famously used by online debaters that care more about being, or at least appearing right (and self-righteously so) than about convincing anyone. The whole “burden of proof” concept used as a rhetorical argument is completely shallow, but here we are even in a position when if applied correctly it goes in my favor.

I have fulfilled all my responsibilities now.

 General Annoyance wrote:
I mean I guess... could you elaborate that point to me a bit more?

Sure I need to go now and I'm a bit late but I'll do so later. But I'm afraid I don't have any spectacular wisdom in stock, sorry ^^'.

There are female models in GW's range: jain zar, mystweaver, the masque (ish) shadowstrike, Lelith alarielle and a few more. He doesn't need to prove his argument because in itself it can be proved by you simply going into the range of products: they don't shy away from making female models. Also male units lost their rules too, because they didn't get models (for hell's sake, the FACTION LEADER didn't have model AND had its rules removed). Quite a few if we count both settings, it's a thing that has been going across the years and more frequent in males than females (does anyone remember morglum necksnapper?). Now, if instead of playing on a guild trip and trying to get the high ground you' could actually contribute to the discussion and actually back your claims by something more substantial than an ad hominem... that would be wonderful actually.

 Peregrine wrote:


Being male is why you don't notice it. You're used to male names/pronouns being the default, so you don't notice it when there are few/no female names/pronouns. Trust me, women notice these things.

Perhaps I didn't word that very well; I do observe a lack of females in an area of 40k or in a story, but it's more like I don't see the significance of the character's gender. Not until I either like or dislike the character will I look at that particular significance and why the author may (or may not) have chosen it.

That being said, I don't doubt that the ladies among us notice this trend more than I do in 40k. I guess I just feel like it's always been a given that 40k is male dominated judging by how little we know about female activity, but also that 40k puts so little significance on your gender in a galaxy in all out war, to the point where it almost doesn't matter; it seems to be more about what you do than who you are in 40k if you want to survive.

G.A

 Peregrine wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:
Is that because I'm male? I doubt it; it's more like I don't see the significance of the character's gender most of the time - I focus on the character themselves.

Being male is why you don't notice it. You're used to male names/pronouns being the default, so you don't notice it when there are few/no female names/pronouns. Trust me, women notice these things.

This, right here, is bullgak. Since I'm a guy I don't notice 'sexism'?

So since I'm a guy my opinion doesn't matter since I can't see the 'sexism'?

That's like saying I only enjoy games because I can play as men...

 Matthew wrote:
This, right here, is bullgak. Since I'm a guy I don't notice 'sexism'?

No, it's not 'bullgak', and Peregrine knows very well what he is talking about. It's awfully easy to 'not care about gender' when indifference means maintaining the status quo, and the status quo is firmly in your favour.

this reminds me of an old argument about LEGO, the LEGO community was in an uproar over the lack of female minifigures (like half a dozen at the time) and really the only way to tell females from males was lipstick and pony tail hair and drawn boob lines and that was it, but people were incensed over the lack of females, eventually LEGO started doing more females and even female oriented LEGO (according to LEGO) sets.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Matthew wrote:
This, right here, is bullgak. Since I'm a guy I don't notice 'sexism'?

No, it's not 'bullgak', and Peregrine knows very well what he is talking about. It's awfully easy to 'not care about gender' when indifference means maintaining the status quo, and the status quo is firmly in your favour.

Just like whenever I express an opinion on genders in video games (namely that I say gender doesn't matter, since you play a character not a gender) but i always get dismissed because I'm a guy. If that's not sexism I don't know what is.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
well i see this thread has still made no productivity as always.

When ever this topic gets brought up it always ends the exact same way

We want female models
Ok well sisters of battle are coming out.

No in guard
Alright well, they could jsut do female heads.

No female models!
well the only way to define that would be breasts which with armor on you would not notice.

at which point we end up in a downward spiral of back and forth bickering, and cheap shots and ultimately arrive at the same conclusion.

The only way to make models that are distinguished as female other then female heads would be sexualized armor, which would then get bitched about, but then when you make it normal that gets bitched about because you cant tell they are female, which gets bitch about, so you sexualize the armor which gets bitched about, so you... ect ect.

I mean honestly the models from Victoria, block out the heads, you cant tell if they are male or female models. (As it should be because the armor is standard.)


So like always, this thread makes no progression, only makes people salty, and ends in a bitching contest.

My thoughts exactly.

 Matthew wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Matthew wrote:
This, right here, is bullgak. Since I'm a guy I don't notice 'sexism'?

No, it's not 'bullgak', and Peregrine knows very well what he is talking about. It's awfully easy to 'not care about gender' when indifference means maintaining the status quo, and the status quo is firmly in your favour.

Just like whenever I express an opinion on genders in video games (namely that I say gender doesn't matter, since you play a character not a gender) but i always get dismissed because I'm a guy. If that's not sexism I don't know what is.

Is gender not a part of a character's identity?

 Spinner wrote:

 Matthew wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Matthew wrote:
This, right here, is bullgak. Since I'm a guy I don't notice 'sexism'?

No, it's not 'bullgak', and Peregrine knows very well what he is talking about. It's awfully easy to 'not care about gender' when indifference means maintaining the status quo, and the status quo is firmly in your favour.

Just like whenever I express an opinion on genders in video games (namely that I say gender doesn't matter, since you play a character not a gender) but i always get dismissed because I'm a guy. If that's not sexism I don't know what is.

Is gender not a part of a character's identity?

"Are you a man or woman?!"

"I'm a meat popsicle"

 Spinner wrote:

 Matthew wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Matthew wrote:
This, right here, is bullgak. Since I'm a guy I don't notice 'sexism'?

No, it's not 'bullgak', and Peregrine knows very well what he is talking about. It's awfully easy to 'not care about gender' when indifference means maintaining the status quo, and the status quo is firmly in your favour.

Just like whenever I express an opinion on genders in video games (namely that I say gender doesn't matter, since you play a character not a gender) but i always get dismissed because I'm a guy. If that's not sexism I don't know what is.

Is gender not a part of a character's identity?

Yes, but gender is irrelevant to it. I don't hate Mirror's Edge for having a woman as a main character. I don't love Just Cause 2 because Rico is a man. I like them both because the games are good and the characters are good.