Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I find that those that say "There aren't enough [identity group X] in [stratum of society Y]" never have an answer to the question "Ok then, what constitutes 'enough'?".

Besides, quotas are just another form tokenism. Tokenism serves no one.

I know of at least two major companies in Australia that friends work for that have lost key staff but cannot hire replacements because they've been told to hire women, and there are no women applying, so they're stuck.

Once you place a value on what someone is vs who someone is, and place that at a higher value to their skills, then you've lost the plot.

Or, to put it another way:

"I believe that in ways large and small, peaceful and sometimes violent, that the biggest threat to the future of our children and grandchildren is the poison of identity politics that preaches that our differences are far more important than our common humanity."

That's a quote from former President of the USA, Bill Clinton.

It's neo-Marxist in the sense that it's evolved from "classical" Marxism's focus on economic class as the centerpiece of conflict to gender class as the primary driver of societal conflicts. There's a clear line of evolution from the ideas of Marx to modern Feminism and more or less the standard accepted definition in political science.

Which, of course, doesn't change the fact that Peregrine is right about Marxism being used as a boogeyman in the context of this thread. In the original post it's taken for granted that neo-Marxism is something bad and that no explanation is needed as to why this is the case. "It's Marxist, therefore it is bad" doesn't necessarily hold up to scrutiny just because the first half of the statement happens to be true.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's neo-Marxist in the sense that it's evolved from "classical" Marxism's focus on economic class as the centerpiece of conflict to gender class as the primary driver of societal conflicts. There's a clear line of evolution from the ideas of Marx to modern Feminism and more or less the standard accepted definition in political science.

Which, of course, doesn't change the fact that Peregrine is right about Marxism being used as a boogeyman in the context of this thread. In the original post it's taken for granted that neo-Marxism is something bad and that no explanation is needed as to why this is the case. "It's Marxist, therefore it is bad" doesn't necessarily hold up to scrutiny just because the first half of the statement happens to be true.

Okay, nice misconstruing of the post, but whatever. If I wanted to use it as a bogeyman, I'd have done so. But I was attempting to describe the attributes of the thing I wanted to talk about.

Remembering that most 40k minis are not remotely in scale to themselves or their weapons - and that we have recognisable female figures from many companies including occasionally GW.

I would rather that the game reflected the lore and had female figures, many of whom would be recognisably female as the outfits are seldom practical for either sex.

There is a good argument that the Sororitas power armour is recognisably feminine for in universe reasons - ie to show that the Church is not fielding men at arms as it is forbidden o do so.

Many guard regiments are either going to be obvious as to which sex you are due to lack of clothes - Catachen or so ceremonial that its more like the SOBs. A few like the Cadians are more like the modern pics shown above but again other companies have clearly shown that female heads can make a difference - especially in a universe where protective headgear is optional.

Orchestras are a good example of how to hire people. Why are orchestras so diverse? Because they only value people based in the quality of their sound. Literally.
And it is true, theres quotas that cant be met, like female programers or male nurses.
I dont believe in equality of results but in equality of opportunity. Is not abot having 50% male truck drivers and 50% female truck drivers. Is abou that 5% female truck drivers tjat really love that job, being able to do it without any kind of discrimination for their sex. And we arent there yet.
The only job I can think quotas can work is in politics. Is not like politics are actually competents, so the "but because of the quota, many capable male politicians wont be ministers! Ministers should be the best of the best!" reasoning is rubbis. Do anybody believe that? Politicians are a reflection of the mediocrity of society, so at least let both sexes get equally represented in that mediocrity.

I tend to side against whichever party uses the word 'encroachment'.

We don't own 40K. By definition it isn't our territory to be encroached.

I suppose we could claim that SJW or whatever are encroaching on our gaming clubs etc but its worth noting that, if you are wanting people to stay away from your gaming group because you disagree with their political views, then I'm afraid you're one of those safe space snowflakes who cannot handle other people with different POV.

Yes, please stop using the term "neo-Marxist", it doesn't reflect well on you or your opinions.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


"I believe that in ways large and small, peaceful and sometimes violent, that the biggest threat to the future of our children and grandchildren is the poison of identity politics that preaches that our differences are far more important than our common humanity."

That's a quote from former President of the USA, Bill Clinton.

The sex agressor?

 Selym wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's neo-Marxist in the sense that it's evolved from "classical" Marxism's focus on economic class as the centerpiece of conflict to gender class as the primary driver of societal conflicts. There's a clear line of evolution from the ideas of Marx to modern Feminism and more or less the standard accepted definition in political science.

Which, of course, doesn't change the fact that Peregrine is right about Marxism being used as a boogeyman in the context of this thread. In the original post it's taken for granted that neo-Marxism is something bad and that no explanation is needed as to why this is the case. "It's Marxist, therefore it is bad" doesn't necessarily hold up to scrutiny just because the first half of the statement happens to be true.

Okay, nice misconstruing of the post, but whatever. If I wanted to use it as a bogeyman, I'd have done so. But I was attempting to describe the attributes of the thing I wanted to talk about.

You mentioned it was neo-Marxist in passing in the same sentence you outlined why you thought it was bad. If it wasn't your intention to use "neo-Marxist" as a pejorative you really need to work on the disposition of your text.

If I wrote that I thought capitalism was a "liberal ideology of exploitation, domination and greed" it wouldn't matter that it technically is an ideology with its roots in liberalism, because I'd be interpreted as connecting "liberal" with the value-ladened words following it. I'll take your word for the fact that you didn't mean to use neo-Marxist as a pejorative, but the entire confusion of this thread is down to the fact that your opening post is a confusing mess that practically invites the user to be confused as to what you actually mean. You're trying to get Dakka in on an already ongoing debate from elsewhere, and it shows.

As a Marxist, the whole concept of 'Neo-Marxism' is utterly absurd. It's derived from a far-right/crypto-fascist conspiracy based upon a severe misunderstanding of the works of the Frankfurt school (of witchcraft and wizardry), which effectively comes down to the notion that Karl Marx's 'intellectual successors' planned (or plan) to destroy western civilisation via Miley Cyrus twerking and mainstream acceptance of homosexuality and progressive politics.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Remembering that most 40k minis are not remotely in scale to themselves or their weapons - and that we have recognisable female figures from many companies including occasionally GW.

I would rather that the game reflected the lore and had female figures, many of whom would be recognisably female as the outfits are seldom practical for either sex.

There is a good argument that the Sororitas power armour is recognisably feminine for in universe reasons - ie to show that the Church is not fielding men at arms as it is forbidden o do so.

Many guard regiments are either going to be obvious as to which sex you are due to lack of clothes - Catachen or so ceremonial that its more like the SOBs. A few like the Cadians are more like the modern pics shown above but again other companies have clearly shown that female heads can make a difference - especially in a universe where protective headgear is optional.

The scale means the proportions would need to be exagerated to actually be noticed, the other companies are guilty of this or the detail sucks.

I am outright telling you, not suggesting, but telling you, woman would have the same kit like they do in real life, "one size fits none" is a joke we like to make, even our democratic goverment doesnt give two craps on how "comfortable" your kit is, a woman in full PPE looks the same as a man for all intents and purposes.

you are right about the catachans and it would work for them, sisters too, you example of "protective headgear is optional" is also flat wrong, its rare of anyone to enter a warzone without a helmet, in 40k its just as rare, but because the models have sarges with bare heads people make the false assumption this is the norm in the fluff, I can see why some regiments would not wear helms (fight light) in the fluff, but these are ultra rare or not regular fighting forces.

Now that all being said, sure, make female guard models, but do not exagerate the proportions and make them look like crap (like the current male ones)

Been watching "Love and Fate" (former Soviet book about a period of WWII). Besides being cool (Tanks! Guns! Russians! Lots of Russians with Guns! Piano music while Russians repel evil Hitlerites!) its really hard to tell the women soldiers from the men except when they talk.

Thats how 40K should be and is most of the time.

On the subject of quotas, we've effectively had quotas for men over women for centuries. While I agree that the idea of quotas is ultimately a bad idea, I'd argue that there currently is no way of not having quotas; either we stick to the status quo, which is effectively a quota against women (or, in some workplaces, men) or we try to compensate through the use of explicit quotas. It's a less than ideal solution, but it's potentially less bad than the status quo.

I think arguments about how women and men would look the same at 28mm scale would have more weight if GW had released a guard kit and stated that it represented both male and female guardspeople, because they look the same in uniform.

What has happened is the kit was designed to make guardsmen.
If someone laments the lack of female representation saying 'Meh, the women would look the same anyway, just pretend they're not blokes' doesn't carry a massive amount of weight.

Especially if you play Catachan or Vostroyan.

 Denny wrote:
I think arguments about how women and men would look the same at 28mm scale would have more weight if GW had released a guard kit and stated that it represented both male and female guardspeople, because they look the same in uniform.

What has happened is the kit was designed to make guardsmen.
If someone laments the lack of female representation saying 'Meh, the women would look the same anyway, just pretend they're not blokes' doesn't carry a massive amount of weight.

Especially if you play Catachan or Vostroyan.

It carries a lot more weight that the counter argument of making them look exagerated to be clearly female, since one has an element of realism and the other throws that out.

if they make female guard they need to look the part, this isnt dark eldar or sisters, they have at least tried to make guard look like a semi realistic fighting force, and that means to be consistent the rank and file guardswoman would look functionally the same as the guardsmen, as I said before this is not opinion, this is a fact.

BUT!

We have character models, and that would be the perfect place to have a bare female head, personally I would like it to have the military buzz cut or "bun" that woman must have when in uniform, no long flowing hair, no boob plate, just a guard body with some feminine features.

He does have a pretty reasonable argument though with regards to Catachan and Voystroyan.

 Formosa wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Remembering that most 40k minis are not remotely in scale to themselves or their weapons - and that we have recognisable female figures from many companies including occasionally GW.

I would rather that the game reflected the lore and had female figures, many of whom would be recognisably female as the outfits are seldom practical for either sex.

There is a good argument that the Sororitas power armour is recognisably feminine for in universe reasons - ie to show that the Church is not fielding men at arms as it is forbidden o do so.

Many guard regiments are either going to be obvious as to which sex you are due to lack of clothes - Catachen or so ceremonial that its more like the SOBs. A few like the Cadians are more like the modern pics shown above but again other companies have clearly shown that female heads can make a difference - especially in a universe where protective headgear is optional.

The scale means the proportions would need to be exagerated to actually be noticed, the other companies are guilty of this or the detail sucks.

I am outright telling you, not suggesting, but telling you, woman would have the same kit like they do in real life, "one size fits none" is a joke we like to make, even our democratic goverment doesnt give two craps on how "comfortable" your kit is, a woman in full PPE looks the same as a man for all intents and purposes.

you are right about the catachans and it would work for them, sisters too, you example of "protective headgear is optional" is also flat wrong, its rare of anyone to enter a warzone without a helmet, in 40k its just as rare, but because the models have sarges with bare heads people make the false assumption this is the norm in the fluff, I can see why some regiments would not wear helms (fight light) in the fluff, but these are ultra rare or not regular fighting forces.

Now that all being said, sure, make female guard models, but do not exagerate the proportions and make them look like crap (like the current male ones)

I am assuming the last image was how not to do it

re headgear - I was amused by Farsight commenting on how stupid this was in the recent novel (a very good read)

Cant see why this model would not work?

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Remembering that most 40k minis are not remotely in scale to themselves or their weapons - and that we have recognisable female figures from many companies including occasionally GW.

I would rather that the game reflected the lore and had female figures, many of whom would be recognisably female as the outfits are seldom practical for either sex.

There is a good argument that the Sororitas power armour is recognisably feminine for in universe reasons - ie to show that the Church is not fielding men at arms as it is forbidden o do so.

Many guard regiments are either going to be obvious as to which sex you are due to lack of clothes - Catachen or so ceremonial that its more like the SOBs. A few like the Cadians are more like the modern pics shown above but again other companies have clearly shown that female heads can make a difference - especially in a universe where protective headgear is optional.

The scale means the proportions would need to be exagerated to actually be noticed, the other companies are guilty of this or the detail sucks.

I am outright telling you, not suggesting, but telling you, woman would have the same kit like they do in real life, "one size fits none" is a joke we like to make, even our democratic goverment doesnt give two craps on how "comfortable" your kit is, a woman in full PPE looks the same as a man for all intents and purposes.

you are right about the catachans and it would work for them, sisters too, you example of "protective headgear is optional" is also flat wrong, its rare of anyone to enter a warzone without a helmet, in 40k its just as rare, but because the models have sarges with bare heads people make the false assumption this is the norm in the fluff, I can see why some regiments would not wear helms (fight light) in the fluff, but these are ultra rare or not regular fighting forces.

Now that all being said, sure, make female guard models, but do not exagerate the proportions and make them look like crap (like the current male ones)

I am assuming the last image was how not to do it

re headgear - I was amused by Farsight commenting on how stupid this was in the recent novel (a very good read)

Cant see why this model would not work?

Any doubt she is woman?



Also its not just the models - its that the lore for the game often has great female characters - except often in the actual Codex.

I think GW is better then it was but they have only gone a little way down the road, and that's also from chatting to a few women who work for GW, love the hobby.

I guess it boils down to the two points:
- Should GW as a company try to portray more diversity in their product that is more inclusive to all potential customers?
- Should the fictional Imperium be seen as having more diversity?

From a company perspective, it only makes sense to have product that people can identify with which should make it more compelling for purchase.

From the Imperium viewpoint from me reading a huge amount of their "fluff": every "warm body" is wanted or needed, they care so little I would figure anything beyond the label of "ab-human" would be readily considered for service.
They are supposed to include a multitude of solar systems so it would be unreasonable to not draw from the variety of citizens.

Change happens at the consumer or individual level.

I found it incredibly odd that no females were modeled in IG/AM "grunts".
They are the core representation of the general citizens of the Imperium.
I find ethnic diversity is readily inferred depending on how one paints.
Any kind of physical challenges for performing war game duty tend to be overcome by the multitude of implants and bionics.

I think this is why "Victoria Miniatures" has pretty good business: they fill what seems like a gap in the product line. (https://victoriaminiatures.com/)

I think there is a bit of something for everyone with the various races.
- Eldar: They do show male and (very few mind) female guardians. I seem to remember some of the fluff that Howling Banshees male and female take on that "aspect" so a traditional female form is portrayed.
- Orks: They are genderless. An awful lot of being called "boyz" but they reproduce by spores on death. They are shown as the ultimate bigots though, if it is not green it is eaten, enslaved or killed.
- Space Marines: This is the main army that seems to be the point of contention: there is no good reason for them to be only men.
Like real marines, once the gear is on, there is no difference in look or on the battlefield.
I feel a bit guilty but I REALLY like this model to differentiate (if that is what is wanted) but it appeals to a VERY skinny body-type.

I find the term "gender quotas" very much a root problem that there is focus on the differences when really the crux of the issue is that is should be treated like it does not matter at all.

There is a fair bit of discussion on trying to achieve equality but increasingly people want to be indulged in being a "special snowflake", these wants conflict a little.

We either "celebrate" what we are, or we are all on an equal footing, this dichotomy is decided on one side or the other by pretty much anyone.

Generally, anything involving a youtube personality like Sargon and phrases like "tumblr femnism" is inherently intended to be a poop throwing contest beneath a thin veneer plausible deniability against a shadow-spectre, mostly intended to milk Trevor's Axiom for financial benefit as people go apeshit and throw resources into a contrived social fight that benefits nobody. A caustic Youtube personality squaring off against a random Facebook group is the stuff that should be left to comments on those services, because they don't have any greater meaning than that.

As for how it relates to 40k, 40k is a dystopian nightmare of a universe, nothing good happens to anyone regardless of their identities. For my own part, I don't exactly see 40k embracing "tumblr feminism", their ideas and writing quality have diminished dramatically over the years, but hardly in any direction that could be pointed to in the way that is attempting to be portrayed.

 daedalus wrote:
He does have a pretty reasonable argument though with regards to Catachan and Voystroyan.

Yep he does with catachan, it would work for them quite easily, he is wrong with vostroyan though, they would just lack mustaches, other than that the big hats and other gear would hide the female body and just the face would show.

take a look

Makers these days can do a lot better than that - I have loads of them





But also I don't mind boob plates or helmetless models. The entire Catachan regiment does not bother with them and they are not the only ones. 40K caters for those who want guard to look like soldiers and those who want out there warriors for loads of genres

Formosa, a ton of 3rd party ranges show that you are wrong. One can do reasonable feminine guard models that are obviously female without cleavages, boob plates, etc... why do you keep saying that?

Yeah you show two pics of sexualized and badly sculpted models to prove your "point", ignoring all the other much superior sculpts in the same scale other people is showing.

A feminine face isn't a masculine one, even in 28mm scale. So no, a female Vostroyan wouldn't be the same as a male vostroyan without a mustache, thats just asinine.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Makers these days can do a lot better than that - I have loads of them





But also I don't mind boob plates or helmetless models. The entire Catachan regiment does not bother with them and they are not the only ones. 40K caters for those who want guard to look like soldiers and those who want out there warriors for loads of genres

Ok so the magos looks bloody awful and doesnt fit the theme of mechanicus, the second model is a perfect example of the kind of thing i am looking for, subtle, nice details and clearly a female, but no boob plate.

As you can probably tell i want my soldiers to look like soldiers lol

 Formosa wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
He does have a pretty reasonable argument though with regards to Catachan and Voystroyan.

Yep he does with catachan, it would work for them quite easily, he is wrong with vostroyan though, they would just lack mustaches, other than that the big hats and other gear would hide the female body and just the face would show.

take a look

Well, I was thinking specifically of the moustaches, but since you came with a picture: I feel like a lot of those chins are also exaggerated in a masculine manner.

Of course, I also have the benefit of staring at a static high resolution picture, not a 1" tall miniature from 3 feet away, so I dunno.

Plus, how does saying they'd look basically the same refute the point?

Women are underrepresented in politics. Saying 'yeah but they would make the same stupid decisions if they were in power so it doesn't matter' doesn't really address this.

 Galas wrote:
Formosa, a ton of 3rd party ranges show that you are wrong. One can do reasonable feminine guard models that are obviously female without cleavages, boob plates, etc... why do you keep saying that?

Yeah you show two pics of sexualized and badly sculpted models to prove your "point", ignoring all the other much superior sculpts in the same scale other people is showing.

A feminine face isn't a masculine one, even in 28mm scale. So no, a female Vostroyan wouldn't be the same as a male vostroyan without a mustache, thats just asinine.

hmmm looks like someone didnt bother reading all my posts.

female models = good

exagerated female bodies = bad

Nice in proportion female guard are welcome, my examples are of the bad ones I dont like or want, so not asinine, not cherry picking, just showing examples of BAD female models I would not want to see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Denny wrote:
Plus, how does saying they'd look basically the same refute the point?

Women are underrepresented in politics. Saying 'yeah but they would make the same stupid decisions if they were in power so it doesn't matter' doesn't really address this.

um... what are you talking about???

 Vaktathi wrote:
Generally, anything involving a youtube personality like Sargon and phrases like "tumblr femnism" is inherently intended to be a poop throwing contest beneath a thin veneer plausible deniability against a shadow-spectre, mostly intended to milk Trevor's Axiom for financial benefit as people go apeshit and throw resources into a contrived social fight that benefits nobody. A caustic Youtube personality squaring off against a random Facebook group is the stuff that should be left to comments on those services, because they don't have any greater meaning than that.

As for how it relates to 40k, 40k is a dystopian nightmare of a universe, nothing good happens to anyone regardless of their identities. For my own part, I don't exactly see 40k embracing "tumblr feminism", their ideas and writing quality have diminished dramatically over the years, but hardly in any direction that could be pointed to in the way that is attempting to be portrayed.

I can't exalt this enough.

Ok so the magos looks bloody awful and doesnt fit the theme of mechanicus, the second model is a perfect example of the kind of thing i am looking for, subtle, nice details and clearly a female, but no boob plate.

As you can probably tell i want my soldiers to look like soldiers lol

Magos's are very individual - this one was fine for me - some even look feminine in somewhat weird way - more android like for instance or even biomancers.

Thing is you can have them look like soldiers but in 40k they often don't - they can be from Death worlds or som many varied cultures that are reflected in the Regiments - the good thing is we get to do either or both

 Formosa wrote:

um... what are you talking about???

There are no plastic female Imperial Guardsmen. They are all blokes.

Someone comes along and says 'Ah this sucks. I'd like some female guardsmen. Why aren't they represented?'

Your response: 'Meh, they would look the same.'

How does this address their concern?
They never said they wanted models that look excessively female. They haven't asked for boobs or butts or any of that. They just want GW to release some female guardsmen, not to pretend the male guardsmen are female,

I mean you can pretend that all Space Marines are female (under that armour who can tell?) but this in no way refutes someone's objection that there are no female space marines.

The issue is 'why no women' not 'I like moar bewbs please'