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.

 Galas wrote:
And what about all the non feminist, male leading titles that sank? Thats the problem with the "SJW killed marvel" narrative. Is based around confirmation bias. I think you are a very reasonable person Adeptus Doritos, don't fail in that trap please.

Ah, of course. It's a lot more to do with several factors. Event fatigue, too many changes and retcons...

And the way some writers have behaved on Social Media doesn't make people want to buy them, either.

But the movies are fun.

Steven Universe is a great show. Great plot, great characters, great music, lighthearted.
Some of his fans are a little meh. But I had never a problem with the fanbases of something that I enjoy sucking like Rick & Morty or Undertale, etc... I just enjoy the thing.

I gotta be honest, I think the title of this thread is somewhat misleading.

What the OP is discussing, relatively well in my opinion, is a number of things related to gender identity within 40k and how that impacts on the player base.

I'm not convinced that it's as simple as "make female space marines" or "give us female guardsmen" will encourage more women to the hobby, if that's the intent. I think there is a cultural shift generally around "nerdcore" stuff (that has historically been male dominated) where it is becoming more accepted by everyone. There are more DnD players now than ever before and a larger proportion of those are women. Things like the Big Bang Theory, Stranger Things, IT Crowd and others have removed the stigma that used to be attached to being a geek. A stigma that existed when I was young and effectively made me hide my hobby interests from people until I felt extremely comfortable with them. With the stigma all but removed we find more and more players of both sex, regardless of anything GW do.

Do I think we should have female space marines? No, it has been written into the lore that they don't exist.

Would I be happy to see [female marine equivalents but under a different and appropriate guise to satisfy the lore]? Not really, it wouldn't bother me one way or another.

Do I think we could do with more female representation within the miniatures generally? Yes, undoubtedly.

Do I think more female models would encourage more female players? No, not noticeably.

Do I think we need binary, non-binary and a ton of other genders represented in 40k? Well I'd say we have a pretty good spread already. Fungus-things? Check. Insectoid aliens? Check. Fish people? Check. Terminator-like skeletal robots (for the record, boobs on a Necron would be bizarre, skeletons don't have boobs guys)? Check.

Should the human(ish) factions have more genders other than male and female represented? No. The game is not about gender expression, it's about war. War doesn't care if you believe your gender to be male, female, fluid or rainbow unicorn - it kills your ass dead all the same.

pismakron wrote:

How do you know that helmeted Custodes are not all girls?

Unfortunately it says they are all boys in the Codex.

 Crimson wrote:
Unfortunately it says they are all boys in the Codex.

Must be impossible to make your own.

Oh wait.

Elbows wrote:Here's a crazy idea...somebody who produces an IP and product can produce it any way they wish? The beauty of the world is that no one is beholden to your "feelings". Honestly, how dare anyone demand anything from someone else's property.

They can piss off.

This point resonates with my feelings more than any other. “Vote” with your time and dollars, so to speak. If a particular thing/hobby/whatever doesn’t jive with my interests or values, I move on to one that does. By the same token, if it does change, I don’t get bent out of shape. If the change doesn’t preclude me from continuing to enjoy it, cool. If it doesn’t, I move on having still enjoyed the thing up to that point. There are many great things to enjoy in life, and far more meaningful problems to worry about.

As for the issue of representation, it would be inaccurate to say I don’t care at all, so I’ll say I barely care at all. The idea that everything (or even this one thing) must/should display some sort of representative diversity is silly to me. That being said, I have no desire to restrict the choices or preferences of other players, and it’s no skin off my nose when interests and priorities don’t align with my own.

If we’re extrapolating to the issue of gender representation and “rights” to beyond 40k, I hesitate to conflate things like cultures that legitimately oppress and repress women to a game of toy soldiers.

Galas wrote:I think that the fact that the Emperor only wanted to surround himself of perfectly sculpted, intelligent and totally submisive males speaks volumes.

Oh, stop.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Do you mean Alias, spiderwoman, spider gwen, gwen-pool, Mrs Marvel (Khamala Khan), Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) and all the other very successful pro feminist comics marvel produces where their female characters are no longer wearing insane onesies with individual boobs cups apparently sewn into their costumes?

Yeah THOSE comics tanked.

Not at all like the success of New 52 Catwoman where the first issue spent 3 pages showing ass and tit shots of catwoman in various states of undress before the final full page splash of her getting penetrated by Batman. THAT series was super successful and didn't tank at all.

Cool, now let's talk about all the failed titles that sank. The ones you named were actually pretty well written and not overtly feminist. The others were a dumpster fire and got canned, fortunately.

Gee, No gak? So good writing is a major factor in sales? No gak? You know what generally helps make for good writing? Fair representation of the characters.

You can depict a character like this


or like this


Spider woman went trough an entire story arc where she was pregnant.

Heres the thing you don't seem to understand. Modern Feminism isn't about anti-male pro-female, it's about fair representation. Thats it. FAIR representation. You don't see spider man swinging around with 3 pouches sewn into his pants for each of his balls and his dick. Batman and Captain America wear armor. Male characters are there to be more than subservient eye candy. Where Marvel has really stepped up their game is they are telling stories about actual people that don't exist primarily to appeal as visual sex objects.

Now GW and WH are free and welcome to do whatever they want. But everyone else is also free to criticize them by whatever metric they feel like reasonable or unreasonable. It is REASONABLE to criticize them for not having or even making strides towards fair representation. Especially this late in the game.

Batgirl is such a lame character. Batwoman is where the moneys at.
The only Bat-Something that its his own character and not a support element for Batman (I know she was created to stop the rumours of Batman being homosexual but those where the 50's.)

 Galas wrote:
Batgirl is such a lame character. Batwoman is where the moneys at.
The only Bat-Something that its his own character and not a support element for Batman (I know she was created to stop the rumours of Batman being homosexual but those where the 50's.)

I always liked the Stephanie Brown Batgirl best. She's the only one who really earned it. But then hey, new 52 and she doesn't exist anymore so whatever.

Well, first of all, we need to understand that the lack of females in 40k is not nearly as big as some people think it is.

Going on by factions, we'll start with xenos

Orks and necrons do not have the concept of gender apply to them. one is a mushroom, and the other a robot.
Tau has equal representation-a human eye can't tell them apart when they got a helmet on, and without helmet we got both head types so we can pick whatever we want.
Eldar (and variants) has around equal female representation in their model lines.
Tyranids, like orks and necrons, don't have gender really apply to them, but they got "female flavor" in some areas.

So at least when it comes to xenos-there is actually equal representaion for females.

Next is chaos.
When it comes to daemons, gender is not quite a relevant thing. khorne and nurgle don't bother with it, tzeentch is too wierd to understand if it even does, and slannesh are any and all, at once, including contradictions, because feth everything (literally)
The marines and renegades are a mirror of the imperium, so their own flaws are directly taken from imperium.

So the Imperium. where the issue begins.

First, lets get the nuns of of the way-the sisters are a thing. they need models, but they are a thing. they got overly sexual themes, but that's intentional. we'll get to it later.

Then you got guard, who has a fluff/model discrepency issue. fluffwise-you got female guard in equal number. GW just didn't bother with models because its honestly not worth the bother to make an entire female counterpart line, it won't generate nearly enough sells to justify it and most will directly cannibalize from "male IG" lines.

And then there are marines.
Male only, by design, and it should stay that way.
Not because of modeling issues (as in such heavy armor, you practically just need decent female heads)
Not because "its how its always been", and "customary"
Not because there is no market, or because its a man-club.

Because it is flawed. because it is stupid. because it reeks of bigotry and backwardness.

Because that what the Imperium IS, that what the emperor was when he got started an all that-a racist, misogynistic bigot who thinks too highly of himself and too lowly on everyone else.
The Imperium is not star-trak ideal society, its a backwards feudal-like society where civil rights are non-existence and nobody cares about you. its an empire where bigory, racism and sexism reign supreme by an elite caste of rules who think very little of anyone else and live only to serve themselves.

It is MEANT to be bad. it is MEANT to be disgusting in the eyes of a liberal mind.
Its a place where you can make the overly-sexualized sisters of battle because its "technically not an army by the definition of "men at arms", as it is not men, and as such gets around the limit that I'm not allowed to have one"

The IoM model line is a good representation of what it is.
Trying to make the model line more "liberal" is ignoring the fact the IoM itself, is very much not so.

Females would be the exception to the rule, thus they likely would not have individualized armor schematics. Get a male's armor that is close, put it on, here's a gun... die for the Emprah. Seriously, it takes a bigger logical leap to justify female-tailored armor. Jean d'Arc wore male armor. Why? There were no female versions available for whatever reason. Guess they sold out or something (sarcasm).

If we're truly going to put effort into dissecting the 40k universe, let's at least make logical conclusions based on the evidence presented. Injecting bias into observations makes a mess quite akin to what happened in climate change science: the conclusion was determined before the experiments were conducted, thus they only observed data that proved their conclusion.

I've already shown how females are represented by GW in sculpt and lore, and how a player can take that and go so much further. It totally disproves the entire argument that the hobby is woefully biased against females. To continue to suppose that there is some big conspiracy based on... whatever soft-science "statistical" approach is simply denying the overwhelming evidence in your face. Enjoy your heat death and swelling oceans in 2 years.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Do you mean Alias, spiderwoman, spider gwen, gwen-pool, Mrs Marvel (Khamala Khan), Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) and all the other very successful pro feminist comics marvel produces where their female characters are no longer wearing insane onesies with individual boobs cups apparently sewn into their costumes?

Yeah THOSE comics tanked.

Not at all like the success of New 52 Catwoman where the first issue spent 3 pages showing ass and tit shots of catwoman in various states of undress before the final full page splash of her getting penetrated by Batman. THAT series was super successful and didn't tank at all.

Cool, now let's talk about all the failed titles that sank. The ones you named were actually pretty well written and not overtly feminist. The others were a dumpster fire and got canned, fortunately.

Gee, No gak? So good writing is a major factor in sales? No gak? You know what generally helps make for good writing? Fair representation of the characters.

You can depict a character like this

Spoiler:

or like this

Spoiler:

Spider woman went trough an entire story arc where she was pregnant.

Heres the thing you don't seem to understand. Modern Feminism isn't about anti-male pro-female, it's about fair representation. Thats it. FAIR representation. You don't see spider man swinging around with 3 pouches sewn into his pants for each of his balls and his dick. Batman and Captain America wear armor. Male characters are there to be more than subservient eye candy. Where Marvel has really stepped up their game is they are telling stories about actual people that don't exist primarily to appeal as visual sex objects.

Now GW and WH are free and welcome to do whatever they want. But everyone else is also free to criticize them by whatever metric they feel like reasonable or unreasonable. It is REASONABLE to criticize them for not having or even making strides towards fair representation. Especially this late in the game.

Whats the difference here? they are all ripped, and clearly have the male version of boobs out... pecs, I mean you are making some good points so there is no reason to lie about how the male ones are not just as stupid as the female ones.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Unfortunately it says they are all boys in the Codex.

Must be impossible to make your own.

Oh wait.

It isn't and I probably will. It is still shame that a pointless gender restriction was written in the lore of another faction.

Guys, I gotta be honest- I'm pretty sure I see this for what it is.

Feminist 40k has done a pretty thorough job of embarrassing themselves. They take a perfectly good idea like 'get more female models in the game and try to get more women interested in playing' and wrecked it. Like, really bad.

If you go to their Facebook group, it's a lot of hyperbolic statements, straw-man arguments, mental gymnastics with leaps of logic that will just blow your mind.

Then there's the Maxist/Maoist and far-left political radical stuff that's stuffed in there with all the SocJus theories (seems awfully similar to this thread's first post, doesn't it?)

Feminist 40k also ran off the overwhelming majority of their actual female members. One in particular was a GW employee that cosplayed and also competed in the Golden Daemon painting contest. She had a large following and many of their membership left after this. Previously, they did a lot of 'control' in their group by booting female members for disagreeing.

Hell, good luck finding disagreements. They tend to remove that a lot. And boot women from the group quite often, too- you can find several of these commenting on various Social Media groups and even Youtube.

Combine all of this with the fact that Feminist 40k tends to label entire groups as some variation of 'bigot' and make other blatantly false blanket statements to shield their arguments- it gets tiresome to even the most tolerant people. Don't want female Space Marines? You're why women get raped in the FLGS. You hate women. Riiight.

Anyway, you can easily go look and see how Feminist 40k has fallen out of favor in the last few months. They've literally made a joke of themselves, and the creator of that page- once people found out who he was and did a little digging- was probably a factor in the Feminist 40k's declining popularity.

They used these same 'for the male gaze' arguments about the Escher gang and the Chaos War Queen. These buzzword phrases are strewn throughout not only Feminist 40k's facebook page, but its creator's facebook posts. I won't drop names here, but by all means- do a little digging.

So, what's going on here is the founder of Feminist 40k (or at least an admin) is here, trying to drum up the 'importance' of his own group that's become a joke. He's under the guise of a 'concerned female' that is just here to remind us how 'important' the group is and how we should all care.

Six posts in, and this is the first thread started.

I'm okay with being wrong, but usually when it's things like this- I'm not.

I'd be more relieved to know that the OP was actually just a genuine person with a terrible choice of causes to get behind.

So, yeah- I'm pretty sure the OP feels unwelcome right now. And you guys can reach out and mend that or try to make some compromise, but as we've all seen- Feminist 40k doesn't want to listen to anyone, unless they're agreeing.

If it's not the same person, it's a damned insane coincidence.

Anyway, as I was saying- you folks can do what you like, and I'm a jerk but I know a toxic troublemaker when I see one, and Feminist 40k is, and has always been, exactly that.

The difference is I can't see any of their dicks.

And real women in a leotard/spandex look like this.




You see how they don't have 2 giant bowls hanging off her chest?

THATS the difference. Those guys are ripped dudes in tight clothes in the way that ripped dudes in tight clothes look while not going out of their way to show off their organs.

The artists depicting those women went out of their way to be like... LOOK TITS!

How about these comparisons?




vs




Can YOU see the difference?

Gender is less an issue than race in 40K. The Imperium represents culturally insulated racism paralleling the current middle America "backwards bubble" that is resisting the evolutionary cultural path of all other first world nations and regions. The Imperium is built on the same nationalism mingled with religious fanaticism. Simply put: the imperialistic humans call everything not them the "X" word and stand behind nationalist paradigms to justify imposing their fascist will over any that oppose them. I mean, the same root word that is in Xenophobe is also in the bigoted word the Imperium uses for alien races, so how could it be more obvious short of unbridled hate speech?

Lance:

One was real life.

The other is a cartoon drawing. Even the men are sexualized to being nearly perfectly anatomically. They are supposed to be exemplars of our species, not bound by the rules of reality.

That's the difference.

Xeno is not a bigoted word, is just... the greek root for foreigner, or strange.

But I agree, the Imperium of Mankind doesn't has issues with gender, at least at a galactic level. At a planetary level everything is possible.

 Tokhuah wrote:
Gender is less an issue than race in 40K. The Imperium represents culturally insulated racism paralleling the current middle America "backwards bubble" that is resisting the evolutionary cultural path of all other first world nations and regions. The Imperium is built on the same nationalism mingled with religious fanaticism. Simply put: the imperialistic humans call everything not them the "X" word and stand behind nationalist paradigms to justify imposing their fascist will over any that oppose them. I mean, the same root word that is in Xenophobe is also in the bigoted word the Imperium uses for alien races, so how could it be more obvious short of unbridled hate speech?

Yes...that's the point?
If you came to 40k expecting it to be star trek where its an idealised utopia wherein everyone gets along, you came to the wrong game. The IoM is a dark parody of everything wrong with human history, taking inspiration from the USSR, the worse parts of the Catholic Church, The Roman Empire, the Third Reich, with a big dose of Judge Dredd and Dune mixed in.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Lance:

One was real life.

The other is a cartoon drawing. Even the men are sexualized to being nearly perfectly anatomically. They are supposed to be exemplars of our species, not bound by the rules of reality.

That's the difference.

Yeah...yes and no.

 Lance845 wrote:
Heres the thing you don't seem to understand. Modern Feminism isn't about anti-male pro-female, it's about fair representation. Thats it. FAIR representation.

 Tokhuah wrote:
Gender is less an issue than race in 40K. The Imperium represents culturally insulated racism paralleling the current middle America "backwards bubble" that is resisting the evolutionary cultural path of all other first world nations and regions. The Imperium is built on the same nationalism mingled with religious fanaticism. Simply put: the imperialistic humans call everything not them the "X" word and stand behind nationalist paradigms to justify imposing their fascist will over any that oppose them. I mean, the same root word that is in Xenophobe is also in the bigoted word the Imperium uses for alien races, so how could it be more obvious short of unbridled hate speech?

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Lance:

One was real life.

The other is a cartoon drawing. Even the men are sexualized to being nearly perfectly anatomically. They are supposed to be exemplars of our species, not bound by the rules of reality.

That's the difference.

Being near perfect anatomically and wearing an outfit with 50% of your body as exposed skin are 2 very different things. You have never once read a dc comic where a male Lanterns costume... which is a construct of their mind by the way, looked like this



There is a reason for that.

50% skin coverage in many places today is pushing it. They're overclad. I propose that we draw LESS clothes on cartoon models to be more reflective of society.

I can work that argument, too.

 Galas wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Lance:

One was real life.

The other is a cartoon drawing. Even the men are sexualized to being nearly perfectly anatomically. They are supposed to be exemplars of our species, not bound by the rules of reality.

That's the difference.

Yeah...yes and no.

Spoiler:

LOL I fething love deadpool.

 Lance845 wrote:
Being near perfect anatomically and wearing an outfit with 50% of your body as exposed skin are 2 very different things. You have never once read a marvel or dc comic where a male Lanterns costume... which is a construct of their mind by the way, looked like this.

Oh no, it's almost as if there's a considerably larger male demographic buying comics (or rather, was at one time).

Man, you know what cracks me up?

The amount of dudes that are complaining for women. "They should be offended by this!"

Yeah, most of them aren't because they're adults that know the difference between a cartoon drawing and actually objectifying a real human being.

That's why people have so much difficulty taking feminists seriously these days. You're unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and you spend way too much time trying to crusade for people that never asked for your help. And then you write them off as 'stupid' or 'defeated' when they don't care about your first world grievances.

@Adeptus Doritos you need to chill. Regardless of is OP has a good point or not you've let this one go to your head. Re-read your own posts and check If they're really as calm as you think. I honestly think an apology is in order here.

@OP I'm going to assume you're not a troll because of the extensive text and various references to political movments. You've obviously put alot of thought and effort into your post and allow me to commend you for it. That being said you are not making as good a point as you seem to think. Allow me to elaborate.

But before that, shortly about me. I used to be a law student and then swapped to society studies. I've spent several years living abroad. Through this time I've kept up with the hobby (since 3ed). I'm quite well versed in the game lore and spend most of my Dakkadakka time in the background section. I'm quite well versed in the concepts of social constructs as well as intersectionality. Now that my background has been established I will retort, and though I will heavily critizise your original post, please take it constructively. I have no wish to leave ill meaning or leave the OP with a bad taste in your mouth.

While the post goes through the subject on many levels and is understanding that many factors are in play that has lead to the current situation, it also seems to fail to make a point at all. As far as I can tell it mostly boil down to the following sentence: "A hobby about building miniatures for a perpetual space war with crazy religious fanatics is almost completly foccused on boys, and this kind of matters". I must apologies if there was a deeper point to it, but that's honestly what I got out of it after reading it twice. While you explain it in much more detail I don't see how that is relevant. Basket is a sport aimed at men but has a big female following. Horseback riding is a hobby largely dominated by women but has a big male following. Tabletop gaming is a product of its time and has evolved for men, but it does have a big female following as well. I can point to several women I've played against or known through my years in this hobby. It is a bit lacking, sure, but it's not non-exsistance.

Now for the models themselves. A cookie to @JBZ for your in universe list. It stresses the point that while 40k (Oh and OP, please refrain from using the term Warhammer and use the term 40k instead. It can be easy to mistake it for thoughts of the old warhammer fantasy pre aos otherwise. If you want to discuss the hobby as a whole then kindly refer to it as GW games) is largely men and violence foccused it is in fact not sexually foccused (more on this below). True, we should have more female models and it has been asked by the community for years. The issue is that gw only started listening to its players quite recently. For several years the company ignored the playerbase requests and had a quick money policy that made it decline for years. Movments such as fem 40k only really sprang up after the company started growing again and has been pointing at flaws the community as a whole has been pointing at for years to no avail. The best selling female models incidentily only came about recently when gw started growing again. It currently has increased it's economic growth to about twice of what it had during the many years when the players where ignored.

One thing bears mentioning. The sexual appeal of 40k is mostly non exsistent. Given how easy it would have been to over sexually certain armies, namely chaos and the Eldar, I think GW deserve some cookies for not doing so. An overwhelming ammount of the factions are in fact sterile or genderless (as pointed at by JBZ).

Finally, concerning female Space marines I personally don't see the point. We really don't need more Space marine models. An overwhelming ammount of the worlds military, both history wise and current, are male. Why would you not have your elite Space soldiers be male? Calling for a faction to forcibly include female model when the entire culture (in lore, established in over hundreds of books spread over some 35 years) is a brotherhood is the opposite of femenistic goals. If all of them are sterile then what is the point?

Once again I apologies if this critic seems harsh. It is not my intention to be mean. More female models would be usefull and a great addition to the hobby. Not in the Space Marine lineup though. I am assuming we will see more female guardsmen models as soon as they update that 15 or so years old box...

Purifying Tempest wrote:
50% skin coverage in many places today is pushing it. They're overclad. I propose that we draw LESS clothes on cartoon models to be more reflective of society.

I can work that argument, too.

No, you really can't. I mean, it's FINE that you want to ignore the difference in representation. Big part of that good ol freedom is your freedom to stay ignorant in the face of evidence. It just invalidates any possible contribution you might have to the adult conversation.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Heres the thing you don't seem to understand. Modern Feminism isn't about anti-male pro-female, it's about fair representation. Thats it. FAIR representation.

Spoiler:

 Tokhuah wrote:
Gender is less an issue than race in 40K. The Imperium represents culturally insulated racism paralleling the current middle America "backwards bubble" that is resisting the evolutionary cultural path of all other first world nations and regions. The Imperium is built on the same nationalism mingled with religious fanaticism. Simply put: the imperialistic humans call everything not them the "X" word and stand behind nationalist paradigms to justify imposing their fascist will over any that oppose them. I mean, the same root word that is in Xenophobe is also in the bigoted word the Imperium uses for alien races, so how could it be more obvious short of unbridled hate speech?

Spoiler:

Congratulations, brave and noble dakka poster, through your intelligent and clever use of intellect and raw, unadulterated cunning you have successfully left me completely dumfounded and at an utter loss for words. Seriously though, I don't think you understand. This. Is. Officially. The Most. Intelligent. Thing. I. Have. Ever. Seen. Men could live for centuries, for millennia, gathering the knowledge and wisdom of their lands and many others, and still not reach the level of ability that is presented here. The magnificence of the thing, the sheer wonder that such a majestic creation can bestow upon us lowly and unworthy mortals, is far beyond the grasp of a mere man such as myself. I would thank you, but I believe to even involve myself with thee within society would be to ask too much, for I feel that one of such ability as yours is not fit for communication with mere men. Please, fine sir, do not attempt to contact me again. I feel that the magnificence of your presence would be too much for myself to bare.

 Nerak wrote:
@Adeptus Doritos you need to chill. Regardless of is OP has a good point or not you've let this one go to your head. Re-read your own posts and check If they're really as calm as you think. I honestly think an apology is in order here...

LOL you are the funniest person to post in here.

No.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Being near perfect anatomically and wearing an outfit with 50% of your body as exposed skin are 2 very different things. You have never once read a marvel or dc comic where a male Lanterns costume... which is a construct of their mind by the way, looked like this.

Oh no, it's almost as if there's a considerably larger male demographic buying comics (or rather, was at one time).

Man, you know what cracks me up?

The amount of dudes that are complaining for women. "They should be offended by this!"

Yeah, most of them aren't because they're adults that know the difference between a cartoon drawing and actually objectifying a real human being.

That's why people have so much difficulty taking feminists seriously these days. You're unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and you spend way too much time trying to crusade for people that never asked for your help. And then you write them off as 'stupid' or 'defeated' when they don't care about your first world grievances.

Let's clarify.

I am a dude. I am offended by this. I like the stories and depictions better when they have good representation. I support the products that make strides towards them more than the ones that don't. I buy trades of a few marvel ongoings, fables, everafter, the unwritten, hellboy and related titles and the like. I haven't purchased a dc main trade since before new 52.

I want fair representation.

This isn't some dude telling women what they should be offended by. This is me being offended.