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.

 Selym wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:


I get the lore argument, but frankly, lore in every medium needs a refresh every decade or three anyway. The game can't sit forever in 80's sensibilities and has really needed to advance for years now. There's just no reason to make a sandbox universe in which women can't be the heroes too.

I disagree with this logic. 40k prides itself, or used to anyways, on bringing together a particular blend of tropes, media backgrounds, and mythological characteristics that made 40k well... 40k. Having a bit of a refresh once in a while can be good, but taking a swing at the longstanding logics of the universe is needlessly destructive. Really, it would be better to let it die a hero than have it live to become a (possible) abomination.

Sure, but "no girls allowed" is just... not important. It's just not.

You don't even need a massive retcon or anything. We just had a huge timeskip. During that time, someone figured out how to make the space marine process compatible with women. Now we have women space marines. Done.

If they end up doing female space marines instead of redoing SoB i'll be super pissed.

 Selym wrote:
It's really not. I never entirely pay attention to Sargon, as I use his videos for keeping track of a few narratives and events. Doesn't mean I'm going to warm up the the SJW's though, they're full of snivelling whiners who are afraid of: opinions, counterarguments, facts, men, women, life, problems, and their own inadequacies. With a serious dose of collectivist ideologies.

That's quite the list of negative qualities you ascribe to SJWs. Personally I find the ones I know generally pretty cool, but clearly you and I have very different views of the world. I don't, for example, recognize your earlier description of Canada either, and I would question your sources of fact and analysis... but we probably don't need to go down that road in a 40K General Discussion thread

To get back on topic: 40K - the lore and tone - has changed several times over the years. I'm fine with it continuing to evolve, and I'm in favour of getting more female points of view into the game - both in terms of models, in terms of the fiction, and in terms of player base - so I think the fine folks of Feminist40K are doing a good work. I also think it's the better bet for GW to attempt to expand its customer base, but I think they're being prudent in doing so at a glacial pace since it's clear that there are some among the established player base who feel threatened by the relevant changes.

Aaaaaand now we get to implied insults and false dichotomies which label only one specific way of viewing things as correct, and anything else as the last gasp of threatened, inadequate manchildren etc. in spite of the fact that literally everyone here is advocating for more female representation in the models.

Yawn.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Pro tip: insulting people who have a different opinion to you is a good way to undermine your argument and push people further to the other side.

The art of rhetoric is a little less black-and-white than that, I reckon, but thanks for the friendly tip.

I'm not sure why this argument always makes its way back to "female Space Marines" given how much room there is elsewhere in the game to try and break away from the whole "no girls allowed" thing.

40k has a lot of all-male armies, yes, but it's also got a couple of all-female armies, a bunch of entirely co-ed armies, and a few for whom the concept of gender is irrelevant or misleading. The problem isn't that there are no female Space Marines, it's that the women that exist in the lore are wildly underrepresented on the tabletop, and it'd be a lot more straightforward to put more female Guard/Eldar/Inquisition models on the table and expand/make relevant Sisters of Silence and Sisters of Battle.

It's bait, mate.

 Luciferian wrote:
Aaaaaand now we get to implied insults and false dichotomies which label only one specific way of viewing things as correct, and anything else as the last gasp of threatened, inadequate manchildren etc. in spite of the fact that literally everyone here is advocating for more female representation in the models.

Yawn.

Is this targeted at anything or anyone in specific?

 LunarSol wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:


I get the lore argument, but frankly, lore in every medium needs a refresh every decade or three anyway. The game can't sit forever in 80's sensibilities and has really needed to advance for years now. There's just no reason to make a sandbox universe in which women can't be the heroes too.

I disagree with this logic. 40k prides itself, or used to anyways, on bringing together a particular blend of tropes, media backgrounds, and mythological characteristics that made 40k well... 40k. Having a bit of a refresh once in a while can be good, but taking a swing at the longstanding logics of the universe is needlessly destructive. Really, it would be better to let it die a hero than have it live to become a (possible) abomination.

Sure, but "no girls allowed" is just... not important. It's just not.

You don't even need a massive retcon or anything. We just had a huge timeskip. During that time, someone figured out how to make the space marine process compatible with women. Now we have women space marines. Done.

Thats not how (good) narritive structure works. If you follow that logic then to hell with it, orks riding into battle on bloodthirsters, Cawl found plans for an FTL drive in his coat pocket and now we don't need warp travel, T'au sussed space marine tech and have their own Primachs now, Eldar sending hacked necrons in battle now why not? Sky's the limit when you don't give a gak.

In order for a fictional universe to work it needs its own internal structure and rules (this is why saying "hurr we have giant mans fighting daemons is unrealistic so whats the problem?" Is a bugbear with me). While 40k is unrealistic it adheres to its own laws. Warp travel is crap but neccesery, Chaos is self-defeating, orks are everywhere. Primaris, like them or not, don't break these rules because their roots are still in the space marine creation process and only certain people can undergo the process. An lack of a womb isn't the only barrier between a person and being a death merchant with two hearts either, only certain genetic structures work for certain geneseeds.

If you throw out the rules of one thing then why stop there? You've excused yourself from your own consistancy so why not let the setting devolve in a gigantic pile of sludge?

*sigh*

This again.

No, I don't mind the influence of feminism (in various forms, to greater and lesser degrees) on WH40k, particularly if it opens up the universe to a broader range of players (as isolated, insular communities tend to die off).

No, I wouldn't mind if they allowed women to become Astartes. I don't think its necessary, but it wouldn't really change anything significant for the setting, gameplay, or modeling if the dangly bits between the legs of the superhuman warrior monks who live to fight weren't the same (they'd all look like astartes - not boys, not girls, but astartes, which is clearly its own developmental category).

No, I don't think its likely to change, not because serious changes is lore like that can't happen (OHHHHHH THEY CAN), but because the reaction from the fanbase to a change that could appear to be capitulating to some of the more modern feminist approaches would cause a serious uproar, justified or not, and the world would drown in phrases like neo-marxism and nihilism and more, nothing but Jordan Peterson videos would be linked (I saw you, OP), Felinids would mate with Tarellians, etc., etc.

The Warhammer 40k universe is a product of its time, but a lot of that can/should be window dressing, and given the very core of the universe (hint: grim and dark), the dangly bits are very much window dressing. Modernizing settings (like they do/did with comics) is how a setting stays relevant to the changing demographics of players and the consequent changes in cultures and subcultures.The only real question as to whether WH40k would bring in greater diversity of players is how the existing player base reacts, and I have low confidence the reaction would be beneficial to inclusion.

There also seems to be an awful lot of anti-"third-wave-feminism" posters making some interesting claims about third wave feminism's intentions, goals, influence, etc. There's bound to be a few crazies that might match those claims, but the painting so far has been with a fairly broad brush, IMO.

Edit: Also, my goodness, the slip on the slopes of the arguments around here, it's amazing! Modifying a 10000+ year old super soldier program (which was itself explicitly modified for improvement over those 10000+ years) to include the other sex is apparently going to lead to Orks riding Bloodthirsters (...now I want to see a Looted Bloodthirster modeled, damnit). Felinids mating with Tarellians, indeed!

 Aesthete wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Aaaaaand now we get to implied insults and false dichotomies which label only one specific way of viewing things as correct, and anything else as the last gasp of threatened, inadequate manchildren etc. in spite of the fact that literally everyone here is advocating for more female representation in the models.

Yawn.

Is this targeted at anything or anyone in specific?

Why, looking for recognition? Here, have this award for posting in bad faith.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm not sure why this argument always makes its way back to "female Space Marines" given how much room there is elsewhere in the game to try and break away from the whole "no girls allowed" thing.

40k has a lot of all-male armies, yes, but it's also got a couple of all-female armies, a bunch of entirely co-ed armies, and a few for whom the concept of gender is irrelevant or misleading. The problem isn't that there are no female Space Marines, it's that the women that exist in the lore are wildly underrepresented on the tabletop, and it'd be a lot more straightforward to put more female Guard/Eldar/Inquisition models on the table and expand/make relevant Sisters of Silence and Sisters of Battle.

Fluffwise, only Marine armies are all-male. And they're supposed to be so small as to be statistically irrelevant. Listing by gender quotas:

All male:
Every Marine army, including Custodes
[Headcannon exceptions to normal armies]

All female:
SoB
SoS
[Headcannon exceptions to normal armies]

Neither male nor female in the human sense:
Every Nid army
Every Ork army
Ad Mech
Daemons

Mixed Gender:
Literally everything else...
All Eldar armies
Imperial Guard
Imperial Knights, not that you could tell anyway
Titans, same as IK

 LunarSol wrote:
I'm on the side of taking issue with the lack of female models in 40k. It would be one thing if 40k were primarily a story, but its not. The universe largely exists to facilitate the battles on the tabletop and bring friends together to share a game they love. A lot of the love comes from the self expression we get when we field our armies and a lot of that appeal on those that aren't represented. I mean, a lot of us pick our chapter based on, "which badass white guy best represents me?"

Raising a daughter has certainly heightened my awareness of how true this is. In all the geeky things I enjoy, it just takes one female character for her to idolize to get her into it. Certainly no where have I seen this more than in Star Wars, where perhaps my favorite thing about Ep7 was the sheer number of little girls in Jedi robes the following Halloween. Equally interesting is how many red lightsabers I've had to buy for the birthdays of my daughters male friends.

In a game that prides itself on model customization and in particular making your own heroes, its simply ridiculous at this point to not throw a female head or two on those sprues. If a girl wants to be a badass space marine in power armor to help her envision herself blasting orks apart or hacking the limbs of space bugs.... awesome, that's more people to play with.

I get the lore argument, but frankly, lore in every medium needs a refresh every decade or three anyway. The game can't sit forever in 80's sensibilities and has really needed to advance for years now. There's just no reason to make a sandbox universe in which women can't be the heroes too.

Ehh... considering that I play Tau, Orks and Guard I can't say that I agree with the "which badass represents me?" idea. I've never even played marines. In fact, I've never envisioned myself as a single character and I don't know anyone who has.
Now, a role model on the other hand is entirely different. Those girls idolizing female characters is only natural, since they are looking for someone to aspire to. There's a reason we have the saying "Like father, like son". But I don't think that ties in very well with plastic models. Especially as hero characters are all becoming monopose, which keeps you from really customizing them. Besides, you would only be aspiring to a character you made up yourself which is not especially interesting. Of course, I encourage more female options (characters or troops) because they have been confirmed to exist for every human faction except marines. Because of this, I would only oppose female marines.

Now, for the female marine argument, I personally prefer when a fictional universe abides by its own rules. It helps make it real. 40k has done this fairly well because they abide by the rule that it sucks for everyone (except Orks cuz Orks). Technical restrictions are also one of the appeals of good fiction. As an example, I'm actually amazed at how GW managed to make magic make sense in a futuristic setting. The fact that tapping into the warp could kill you makes it feel more real and less arbitrary. In the same vein, marines being male has been established and the fact that it is inherently sexist (to a degree), because of technical limitations or even prejudice, makes the universe feel more compelling.

If you're still unconvinced, all I can say is that a female marine would look just like a male marine. Just put a helmet on and declare it's a woman. Or say that the really masculine jawline was caused by the geneseed and space steroids. Considering GW has yet to hint at female marines I would not hold your breath.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Jordan Peterson videos would be linked (I saw you, OP)

You say that like he's a bad thing...

I don't really care whether or not more 'diversity' is added to the setting or the model range. The problem is when people try to smuggle a political agenda into the setting while purporting to be doing something far more banal and uncontroversial.

"Oh, you don't like the changes we're proposing to the setting? Hmmm, that's problematic. I guess that misogyny is still rampant among the 40k player base".

Ultimately GW is a business and there is no moral imperative for them to cater their product to any particular group. You either support their products financially or you go elsewhere. If it makes business sense for them to court your dollar then they'll do so. If they run the risk of alienating their primary customer base and decide against it, you're not obliged to be happy with it but you can vote with your dollars.

Dandelion wrote:
In the same vein, marines being male has been established and the fact that it is inherently sexist (to a degree), because of technical limitations or even prejudice, makes the universe feel more compelling.

If you're still unconvinced, all I can say is that a female marine would look just like a male marine. Just put a helmet on and declare it's a woman. Or say that the really masculine jawline was caused by the geneseed and space steroids. Considering GW has yet to hint at female marines I would not hold your breath.

In line with this argument, iirc part of the geneseed's encoding required that is interacted with the genetics of the Y chromosome. And even if it didn't need to do that, Marines are a technically-agendered subspecies of Homo Sapiens, meaning that the genetic modifications would render you unrecognisable from your original form. Thereby making females irrelevant.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
*
There also seems to be an awful lot of anti-"third-wave-feminism" posters making some interesting claims about third wave feminism's intentions, goals, influence, etc. There's bound to be a few crazies that might match those claims, but the painting so far has been with a fairly broad brush, IMO.

You're right. Apparently we're on fourth wave feminism since 2012 according to wikipedia. This is difficult to keep up with.

 Selym wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Jordan Peterson videos would be linked (I saw you, OP)

You say that like he's a bad thing...

It's a rhetorical tactic. Take a hard stand and marginalize anything which dissents from your ideology without directly addressing any of the underlying principles and arguments. This works especially well on Dakka, where certain political topics are taboo and you can throw out ad hominems and insults as long as you don't direct them to a certain user. Then, if anyone responds, you play the "if you're offended it must be true, what are you, triggered?" game. Alternatively you play the innocent victim of a personal attack, even though they're responding to some kind of generalization you made in the first place.

 Selym wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
In the same vein, marines being male has been established and the fact that it is inherently sexist (to a degree), because of technical limitations or even prejudice, makes the universe feel more compelling.

If you're still unconvinced, all I can say is that a female marine would look just like a male marine. Just put a helmet on and declare it's a woman. Or say that the really masculine jawline was caused by the geneseed and space steroids. Considering GW has yet to hint at female marines I would not hold your breath.

In line with this argument, iirc part of the geneseed's encoding required that is interacted with the genetics of the Y chromosome. And even if it didn't need to do that, Marines are a technically-agendered subspecies of Homo Sapiens, meaning that the genetic modifications would render you unrecognisable from your original form. Thereby making females irrelevant.

If marines/custodes are agendered, then that means there are technically more female only armies than male only. SoB and SoS versus nothing. So the real problem is that GW hasn't given Guard female heads and that they haven't updated SoB. Tau and Eldar already have female models so GW is just lagging.

 Enigma of the Absolute wrote:


"Oh, you don't like the changes we're proposing to the setting? Hmmm, that's problematic. I guess that misogyny is still rampant among the 40k player base".

Reminds me of when someone tried that with Wyrd a while back claiming they'd been harassed by a Henchman at an event or something and put themselves forward to be hired some kind of gender relations consultant.

Wyrd told them to go away unless they could provide proof, which they couldn't. It's funny because Malifaux actually has a large amount of unsexualised female models despite its turn of the century setting but it's very telling of the mindset of some people that they would try to stir controversy around a company not by attacking the product but by attacking the fanbase.

Dandelion wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
In the same vein, marines being male has been established and the fact that it is inherently sexist (to a degree), because of technical limitations or even prejudice, makes the universe feel more compelling.

If you're still unconvinced, all I can say is that a female marine would look just like a male marine. Just put a helmet on and declare it's a woman. Or say that the really masculine jawline was caused by the geneseed and space steroids. Considering GW has yet to hint at female marines I would not hold your breath.

In line with this argument, iirc part of the geneseed's encoding required that is interacted with the genetics of the Y chromosome. And even if it didn't need to do that, Marines are a technically-agendered subspecies of Homo Sapiens, meaning that the genetic modifications would render you unrecognisable from your original form. Thereby making females irrelevant.

If marines/custodes are agendered, then that means there are technically more female only armies than male only. SoB and SoS versus nothing. So the real problem is that GW hasn't given Guard female heads and that they haven't updated SoB. Tau and Eldar already have female models so GW is just lagging.

I say technically-agendered, because they don't reproduce or act on sexual desire (until chaos, that is), but they're still very much manly men both thematically and genetically.

 Selym wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
In the same vein, marines being male has been established and the fact that it is inherently sexist (to a degree), because of technical limitations or even prejudice, makes the universe feel more compelling.

If you're still unconvinced, all I can say is that a female marine would look just like a male marine. Just put a helmet on and declare it's a woman. Or say that the really masculine jawline was caused by the geneseed and space steroids. Considering GW has yet to hint at female marines I would not hold your breath.

In line with this argument, iirc part of the geneseed's encoding required that is interacted with the genetics of the Y chromosome. And even if it didn't need to do that, Marines are a technically-agendered subspecies of Homo Sapiens, meaning that the genetic modifications would render you unrecognisable from your original form. Thereby making females irrelevant.

If marines/custodes are agendered, then that means there are technically more female only armies than male only. SoB and SoS versus nothing. So the real problem is that GW hasn't given Guard female heads and that they haven't updated SoB. Tau and Eldar already have female models so GW is just lagging.

I say technically-agendered, because they don't reproduce or act on sexual desire (until chaos, that is), but they're still very much manly men both thematically and genetically.

I wonder if Slaanesh fixes their bits for them. Marines still get their bits removed or are impotent right? At what point does Slaanesh decide "right, you're corrupt enough, I'll fix your bits now. It also shoots fire now by the way".

 Selym wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
In the same vein, marines being male has been established and the fact that it is inherently sexist (to a degree), because of technical limitations or even prejudice, makes the universe feel more compelling.

If you're still unconvinced, all I can say is that a female marine would look just like a male marine. Just put a helmet on and declare it's a woman. Or say that the really masculine jawline was caused by the geneseed and space steroids. Considering GW has yet to hint at female marines I would not hold your breath.

In line with this argument, iirc part of the geneseed's encoding required that is interacted with the genetics of the Y chromosome. And even if it didn't need to do that, Marines are a technically-agendered subspecies of Homo Sapiens, meaning that the genetic modifications would render you unrecognisable from your original form. Thereby making females irrelevant.

If marines/custodes are agendered, then that means there are technically more female only armies than male only. SoB and SoS versus nothing. So the real problem is that GW hasn't given Guard female heads and that they haven't updated SoB. Tau and Eldar already have female models so GW is just lagging.

I say technically-agendered, because they don't reproduce or act on sexual desire (until chaos, that is), but they're still very much manly men both thematically and genetically.

I get what you mean (though marines aren't technically human sooo) . I just thought it was funny considering the claims about male-only clubs.

who cares, really

Dandelion wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
In the same vein, marines being male has been established and the fact that it is inherently sexist (to a degree), because of technical limitations or even prejudice, makes the universe feel more compelling.

If you're still unconvinced, all I can say is that a female marine would look just like a male marine. Just put a helmet on and declare it's a woman. Or say that the really masculine jawline was caused by the geneseed and space steroids. Considering GW has yet to hint at female marines I would not hold your breath.

In line with this argument, iirc part of the geneseed's encoding required that is interacted with the genetics of the Y chromosome. And even if it didn't need to do that, Marines are a technically-agendered subspecies of Homo Sapiens, meaning that the genetic modifications would render you unrecognisable from your original form. Thereby making females irrelevant.

If marines/custodes are agendered, then that means there are technically more female only armies than male only. SoB and SoS versus nothing. So the real problem is that GW hasn't given Guard female heads and that they haven't updated SoB. Tau and Eldar already have female models so GW is just lagging.

I say technically-agendered, because they don't reproduce or act on sexual desire (until chaos, that is), but they're still very much manly men both thematically and genetically.

I get what you mean (though marines aren't technically human sooo) . I just thought it was funny considering the claims about male-only clubs.

Marines are still human, super heavily modified, but still human. PRIMARCHS aren't and have never been human.

I don't understand isn't feminism the political, social, and economic equality of women? Does 40k involve any of those?

On top of that aren't there women already playing the game? So there doesn't seem to be a barrier for them, why is this not chalked up personal choice?

Not to mention that relying on GW to give you what you want is well...a waste of time.

You would be much better off just kit bashing your own stuff rather then trying to get GW to make what you want.

Looking at this thread in the index, I thought surely someone had necro'd an old thread. No way there were that many people who jumped on the obvious bait in just a few hours.

You never cease to disappoint me dakka.

I just want to express my contempt for this thread's mere existence, and the weird fearmongering "oh no our hobby is being invaded" premise present in the OP. Yeah, I'm sure someone is out there whining about how there aren't any female space marines and what an affront to equality this is. There are also people whining about how we teach children the earth is round in school, and the round earth stuff is all a big conspiracy. The proper response is to laugh and move on with your life.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Aesthete wrote:
To answer the OP about feminism and 40K - yes please. A more diverse range of models and a more diverse player base can only be good for 40K.

As for the so-called "Sargon of Akkad," the source of your current concerns - he is a cretin cashing in on male insecurity. I'd avoid listening to him as it risks turning you into a snivelling whiner afraid of women.

Pro tip: insulting people who have a different opinion to you is a good way to undermine your argument and push people further to the other side.

not if the insult is pretty much stating a fact

I'd still like someone to explain why "feminism = female space marines". Is everyone so unimaginative that the only way they can think of to increase the presence of women in the 41st milennium is to make them Space Marines?

Oh dear. Here I was, waking up to a nice winter morning and what's the first thing on Dakka I see? *groans and debates just going back under the blankets*

TL;DR: opinionated extremes are often silly, but more feminism is good for everybody and really, there should already be better selection of 40k miniatures for all.

This might get ranty.

I'm a straight young white male myself, for those that might be interested, but subscribe to many feminist tenets as a basis for my self-ascribed humanitarian world view. This includes things like equal treatment, freedom of decisions for persons themselves and, you know, basic human rights and such little things that might make one's life better. There are of course more pressing matters wrong in this world than representation in our silly games of toy soldiers, but here's my take on it: it isn't away from you if someone else gets some love too. Just as it is with human right questions, no-one who wasn't already abusing others is losing anything by letting others have things too. And it is important to let them have them.

We all love certain things in our cultures, whether they be works of fiction, pieces of art or even food. Everyone has their preferences. What connects these all though is that at some point in history there was a human mind that came up with them: there was something that inspired that mind to make it, maybe some stroke of luck or years of hard work that let it happen. Throughout history men have had it easier in almost all respects, most of all when it comes to making art (try imagining you want to be an artist and get your teeth punched in for merely suggesting such an idea, such was too often your lot if you were born a non-noble woman before 1800's. Didn't mean it didn't happen, 'cause there have always been badasses among us ) or helping humanity in general. Through the ages the same story repeats: there is someone with a neat idea, cool stuff happens and the best of those ideamakers get idolized in our collective gallery of great minds. There's people like Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Rosalind Franklin and Emmy Noether making science and people like J. R. R. Tolkien and Ursula K. Le Guin writing literature and collectively we humans just love these people and their ilk as heroes and idols (and let's drop an Indian Nobel physicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar here too for good measure). Until recent years these lists have been mostly sausagefests in their gender ratios, but with the in-march of more progressive societies there has always been a trend towards an equal split because hey, news flash: all sorts of people, men, women, queers, whatever, have ALWAYS had the exact same potential to produce awesome things given a chance. Historically, they just weren't.

And what does this mean in the context of 40k, our beloved grimdark future of all-around suckiness for everyone?

We like our hobby for different reasons, but the same principle stands: awesome things happen in the hobby because there are awesome humans out there doing them. If there's more people in, there's going to be a bigger chance that some of them are outstanding like our idolized heroes have been. As the nerd culture (comics, movies, rpgs, video games...) spreads through younger generations and becomes more and more mainstream, all the traditionally white male dominated fields of gaming are going to see an influx of more diverse folk in the end. And that is only a good thing, for all of us. 40k has always been a huge and many-faceted, almost schizophrenic whole, but remained true to its dark, humorous core and it will continue to do so even if it gets more traction in the progressive circles. It is also a fools errand to really try and separate it from politics, because nothing really exists in a vacuum and 40k came into being as a partly political satire of life in Thatcherian Britain. Likewise, those who like to get their knickers in a twist will carry on doing so with its imagery just as they have done for decades, as zealous witch burnings and xenophobic lynch mobs of indoctrinated fascist masses tend to look kinda bad in any wrong context. The point here, however, is that allowing more diversity INSIDE that wonderfully misanthropic gaming universe will help more folk pick up the game and produce demand and content for us all, resulting in a better hobby, because once again reiterated, someone else having more options is not away from someone else. My significant other, for a practical example, would like to pick up the miniature side with good old Gigerian flesh-machine-horror that is Adeptus Mechanicus / properly diverse and chopped up Guard, but is at the same time disappointed and disheartened because the ranges produced don't lend themselves very well to that vision as they have next to none female models that fit her vision. And regarding that, I personally find some peoples' comments on the gender ratios of Imperium's armies entirely preposterous: saying that armies would mostly consist of men (or shouldn't be 50/50, or at most 1/3 or whatever the heck) is utterly silly poppycock to me, given that humanity of 40k teeters on the brink of extinction. There is no luxury of selection in planetary armies, there is only war and that total war consumes everyone in the affected regions. Just like there are men and women tilling the fields and tending the factories, there are men and women fighting on all fronts.

One last point: on exposure, rolemodels and whining. As a physics teacher (here in the Nordic countries, where it actually means something) I cannot stress too strongly how EXTREMELY IMPORTANT it is to get exposed to something to actually know it exists and have role models that help one to retain their motivation for grasping new things. Being exposed to, say, the existence of Sisters of Battle might entertain the mind of a young girl long enough in a local gaming shop that she gets curious later on and picks up the game. Things like this aren't guaranteed, of course, but every single one that happens is a net positive. This phenomenon has been super visible now with the latest Star Wars films, whereafter young girls swinging toy light sabers around have latched on to the fact that yes, there is indeed a big budget action film with someone like them at the lead, even if they have no clue as to what the actual movie was about. They can find that out later in life, when their cognitive capabilities have developed a bit and grow up making pew pew noises, like many of us here have. Generally speaking there has always been such fictional material with boys or men in the lead that the whole idea of not reading or otherwise consuming those from young age might come off as bit alien to many men of geektastic tendencies, but it is groundbreaking that we can finally have that for women too. As for the need of feminism on these subjects, well, you know there're crying manbabies on the internet signing petitions to Disney to remove Last Jedi from official canon and fanedits of the movie with all female characters cut out? Yeah, there's plenty of need for that. In 40k, the "crying manbabies" problem isn't that bad, but it exists. Active gatekeeping, toxic communities and misogyny are still problems, though more of communities than the 40kverse itself.

To cap it once more: it isn't away from you if someone else gets some love too.