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.

Tiberias wrote:

I am also genuinely asking this: why is it so important that GW makes it canon?

Well, representation in the main faction is rather big deal in itself. And it would help to shut down the bullies and bigots in the hobby to whom this topic is like a red rag to a bull.

Well it is assume that just as Captain Marvel had a huge and positive impact regarding female visibility the same will happend with FSM... And as the MCU is now more female friendly nowadays the future 40k community will be more female friendly if only GW made that tiny effort of producing that FSM head sprue.

Its all hypothetichal, obviously... But some individuals have a real faith in that it would happend.

 Gert wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

I am also genuinely asking this: why is it so important that GW makes it canon?

A lot of the hate female SM and the hobbyists that make them get relies on "that's not canon" as a justification. The idea would hopefully be that if GW takes away the justification, and it becomes harder for people to accept the point of view of hateful people. This is wishful thinking because there isn't any data to base this theory off for obvious reasons.

Quite the opposite if you really think about it. That group of people are seeking to sexualize space marines. Space marines are Asexual.

This post may offend some people here, but the moment you brought the politics of 'political correctness of depicting female population' in the distant fictional setting of 40k, you are either instigating for the sake of instigating an argument between misogynists vs misinformed feminists, or you're just looking for pin-up 40k because you're a closet otaku that hasn't seen the light of day since pre-covid.

Side bar - contrary to popular belief, feminism is not anti-misogyny - it's anti-sexism. It aims to address the root of the problem in our patriarchal society that is sexism, not misogyny that is the named-offshoot of sexism. In short, misogyny can be said to be the PRACTICE of sexism, but not sexism itself.

There is nothing misogynistic about non-inclusion of female models in a fictional game setting. Following, all these discussion on "if we put a female looking head on this thing, then this must be a female!" Really, just mulch on that idea in your head for a while and you'll see how sexist and irrational that is. So then, if a man has a very pretty face, say, prettier than any women you've seen in your life, does that make that individual a woman? Just, stop. Period.

In fact, the more you push for "well, if this model is supposed to be a female, then it should have prettier faces and slender forms, because that's what women are!", you are actually partaking in the very sexism you're trying to address to be more inclusive.

 some bloke wrote:
Ok, so first things first:

Discussions about whether this should or should not happen have already been had and the topic was closed!

In fairness, the OP put "No female SM" as a poll option, contradicting themselves before the thread had even begun.

Crimson wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

I am also genuinely asking this: why is it so important that GW makes it canon?

Well, representation in the main faction is rather big deal in itself. And it would help to shut down the bullies and bigots in the hobby to whom this topic is like a red rag to a bull.

Call me uninformed/naive, but is this a widespread problem that male hobbyists bully female hobbyists? I'm not saying it isn't, just haven't encountered it.

Vatsetis wrote:Well it is assume that just as Captain Marvel had a huge and positive impact regarding female visibility the same will happend with FSM... And as the MCU is now more female friendly nowadays the future 40k community will be more female friendly if only GW made that tiny effort of producing that FSM head sprue.

Its all hypothetichal, obviously... But some individuals have a real faith in that it would happend.

Sure, I get that. There are a lot of female superheroes both in the DC and marvel comics and female fans want to see more of those, probably also lot of male fans.

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I'm genuinely asking: what's wrong with having an IP like 40k where a subfaction like space marines is all male? It's a dystopian nightmare where child soldiers are pumped to the gills with space-steroids, psycho indoctrinated and sent into battle. What does having those asexual hunks of flesh being female solve? Again, I'm genuinely asking because I don't quite understand it

If you frame it that way it certainly dosent make much sense.

But apparently SM should not be a subfaction linked to the general nightmerish lore of 40K but be transform mainly into a vessel for player representation... In that sense is vital that FSM are canonically possible.

Tiberias wrote:

Crimson wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

I am also genuinely asking this: why is it so important that GW makes it canon?

Well, representation in the main faction is rather big deal in itself. And it would help to shut down the bullies and bigots in the hobby to whom this topic is like a red rag to a bull.

Call me uninformed/naive, but is this a widespread problem that male hobbyists bully female hobbyists? I'm not saying it isn't, just haven't encountered it.

You haven't encountered it because there isn't. You will not see a single 40k player telling women to f-off because "it's men's hobby since it only has male models, so girls should go play with dolls". In fact, this type of hobby is known to draw in introverts - not the bigots Crimson's trying to imply are the majority.

In my experience, my S/O is treated like an untouchable goddess when she accompanies me to FLGS.

Tiberias wrote:

Crimson wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

I am also genuinely asking this: why is it so important that GW makes it canon?

Well, representation in the main faction is rather big deal in itself. And it would help to shut down the bullies and bigots in the hobby to whom this topic is like a red rag to a bull.

Call me uninformed/naive, but is this a widespread problem that male hobbyists bully female hobbyists? I'm not saying it isn't, just haven't encountered it.

Vatsetis wrote:Well it is assume that just as Captain Marvel had a huge and positive impact regarding female visibility the same will happend with FSM... And as the MCU is now more female friendly nowadays the future 40k community will be more female friendly if only GW made that tiny effort of producing that FSM head sprue.

Its all hypothetichal, obviously... But some individuals have a real faith in that it would happend.

Sure, I get that. There are a lot of female superheroes both in the DC and marvel comics and female fans want to see more of those, probably also lot of male fans.

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I'm genuinely asking: what's wrong with having an IP like 40k where a subfaction like space marines is all male? It's a dystopian nightmare where child soldiers are pumped to the gills with space-steroids, psycho indoctrinated and sent into battle. What does having those asexual hunks of flesh being female solve? Again, I'm genuinely asking because I don't quite understand it

Quite the opposite. Female hobbyist are welcomed with much enthusiasm lol. There just aren't too many of them.

"I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I'm genuinely asking: what's wrong with having an IP like 40k where a subfaction like space marines is all male? It's a dystopian nightmare where child soldiers are pumped to the gills with space-steroids, psycho indoctrinated and sent into battle. What does having those asexual hunks of flesh being female solve? Again, I'm genuinely asking because I don't quite understand it"

You mean that the imperium of man that conquered 2 million planets by military force and sacrifices 20k people a day to keep it's dead emperor alive and no one has any civil rights...women aren't represented amongst it's super soldiers who aren't even human or technically male? I feel outraged right now...

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I'm genuinely asking: what's wrong with having an IP like 40k where a subfaction like space marines is all male? It's a dystopian nightmare where child soldiers are pumped to the gills with space-steroids, psycho indoctrinated and sent into battle. What does having those asexual hunks of flesh being female solve? Again, I'm genuinely asking because I don't quite understand it

It's more the issue that faction being the flagship and consists of more than 50% of the game. In reality, every other faction is a subfaction to Space Marines.
SM also aren't presented as asexual rather the miniatures are all male-coded and use masculine pronouns in media. As well as this, GW is very bad at actually presenting the factions that are mixed forces with mixed minis, Guard especially. Ironically SoB have more male-coded models than Guard have female-coded models despite SoB being the "female" army.
So yes, absolutely make sure the factions that are and always have been mixed forces get that represented but at the same time the range is still going to be massively dominated by male-coded miniatures.

Tiberias wrote:

Crimson wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

I am also genuinely asking this: why is it so important that GW makes it canon?

Well, representation in the main faction is rather big deal in itself. And it would help to shut down the bullies and bigots in the hobby to whom this topic is like a red rag to a bull.

Call me uninformed/naive, but is this a widespread problem that male hobbyists bully female hobbyists? I'm not saying it isn't, just haven't encountered it.

Vatsetis wrote:Well it is assume that just as Captain Marvel had a huge and positive impact regarding female visibility the same will happend with FSM... And as the MCU is now more female friendly nowadays the future 40k community will be more female friendly if only GW made that tiny effort of producing that FSM head sprue.

Its all hypothetichal, obviously... But some individuals have a real faith in that it would happend.

Sure, I get that. There are a lot of female superheroes both in the DC and marvel comics and female fans want to see more of those, probably also lot of male fans.

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I'm genuinely asking: what's wrong with having an IP like 40k where a subfaction like space marines is all male? It's a dystopian nightmare where child soldiers are pumped to the gills with space-steroids, psycho indoctrinated and sent into battle. What does having those asexual hunks of flesh being female solve? Again, I'm genuinely asking because I don't quite understand it

I have always been of the opinion that elevation is better than amending when it comes to increasing representation. Miles Morales, and Captai Marvel are actually good examples. They don't change established characters in order to fit goalposts. Adding in characters and and themes while respecting the old ones have always been the most successful. You can increase representation and promote inclusivness in ways that don't hurt established settings and storylines.

Sisters, guard, inquisition, mechanicus, imperial navy, scions, commissars all have a great deal of space for growth.

It's why Miles Morales works, and new Ghost Busters doesn't.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

Sisters, guard, inquisition, mechanicus, imperial navy, scions, commissars all have a great deal of space for growth.

One of those isn't a playable faction and three are the same faction.

It's why Miles Morales works, and new Ghost Busters doesn't.

Ghostbusters was just a bad film. It wasn't bad because "wiminz", it was bad because it tried to rehash an old film with a modern spin and failed miserably.

Tiberias wrote:

Call me uninformed/naive, but is this a widespread problem that male hobbyists bully female hobbyists? I'm not saying it isn't, just haven't encountered it.

On the internet? Have you seen the internet?

Sure, I get that. There are a lot of female superheroes both in the DC and marvel comics and female fans want to see more of those, probably also lot of male fans.

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I'm genuinely asking: what's wrong with having an IP like 40k where a subfaction like space marines is all male? It's a dystopian nightmare where child soldiers are pumped to the gills with space-steroids, psycho indoctrinated and sent into battle. What does having those asexual hunks of flesh being female solve? Again, I'm genuinely asking because I don't quite understand it

The matter is skewed by the marines being so overwhelmingly huge chunk of the game and associated fiction. I don't think it would really be a huge problem if, say, Tempestus Scions, were male only. But excluding female representation from marines excludes it from most of the 40K because most of 40K is about marines.

Now this could be addressed by diminishing the importance and prominence of marines, but GW doing that seems far more unlikely than them adding female marines.

Vatsetis wrote:
If you frame it that way it certainly dosent make much sense.

But apparently SM should not be a subfaction linked to the general nightmerish lore of 40K but be transform mainly a vessel for player representation... In that sense is vital that SM can be canonically females.

Ok, but what's wrong with us basement dwelling guys having a male faction just for us? Does that push female hobbyist out of the hobby? It has always been a male dominated hobby, because guys don't grow up, only their toys get more expensive. I genuinely don't understand why every IP like 40k for example HAS to be equally represented regarding the lore and the models.

Tiberias wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
If you frame it that way it certainly dosent make much sense.

But apparently SM should not be a subfaction linked to the general nightmerish lore of 40K but be transform mainly a vessel for player representation... In that sense is vital that SM can be canonically females.

Ok, but what's wrong with us basement dwelling guys having a male faction just for us? Does that push female hobbyist out of the hobby? It has always been a male dominated hobby, because guys don't grow up, only their toys get more expensive. I genuinely don't understand why every IP like 40k for example HAS to be equally represented regarding the lore and the models.

There really is no problem. Some people just want to see boobies on their miniatures, not because they want more women to play the game.

Custodes exist as a male-only faction and don't constitute half the entire range.
And to answer the second point Tiberias, it doesn't have to be 100% perfectly equal but 40k isn't even 5% despite the background stating otherwise.

 Gert wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

Sisters, guard, inquisition, mechanicus, imperial navy, scions, commissars all have a great deal of space for growth.

One of those isn't a playable faction and three are the same faction.

It's why Miles Morales works, and new Ghost Busters doesn't.

Ghostbusters was just a bad film. It wasn't bad because "wiminz", it was bad because it tried to rehash an old film with a modern spin and failed miserably.

Thats my point. It tried to cram an existing property into goal posts without understanding what made the setting and story good to begin with. You can elevate a setting by bringing more into it, not by trying to change what it is in order to meet some prescribed quota.

And those are all positions in the lore where more characters can be grown out of without contradicting what came before.

Tiberias wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
If you frame it that way it certainly dosent make much sense.

But apparently SM should not be a subfaction linked to the general nightmerish lore of 40K but be transform mainly a vessel for player representation... In that sense is vital that SM can be canonically females.

Ok, but what's wrong with us basement dwelling guys having a male faction just for us? Does that push female hobbyist out of the hobby? It has always been a male dominated hobby, because guys don't grow up, only their toys get more expensive. I genuinely don't understand why every IP like 40k for example HAS to be equally represented regarding the lore and the models.

Well you could have a niche faction as Custodes being all male.

The flagship faction of psicoindoctrinated supersoldiers at the service of a dogmatic theocracy should be able to represent anyone and therefore be mixed gender.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

Sisters, guard, inquisition, mechanicus, imperial navy, scions, commissars all have a great deal of space for growth.

One of those isn't a playable faction and three are the same faction.

It's why Miles Morales works, and new Ghost Busters doesn't.

Ghostbusters was just a bad film. It wasn't bad because "wiminz", it was bad because it tried to rehash an old film with a modern spin and failed miserably.

Thats my point. It tried to cram an existing property into goal posts without understanding what made the setting and story good to begin with. You can elevate a setting by bringing more into it, not by trying to change what it is in order to meet some prescribed quota.

And those are all positions in the lore where more characters can be grown out of without contradicting what came before.

It's also ironic that the new Ghost Busters also actively berated and shat on the existing fanbase and potential viewers by calling them all the "isms" under the sun if they didn't watch or like the movie and then were shocked when it did poorly. Similar to how so many people pushing for FSM inevitably use bigots and sexists that apparently exist as a major part of the community as their reason to push for this change and usually calling the majority of the fandom these very labels for not agreeing.

Vatsetis wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
If you frame it that way it certainly dosent make much sense.

But apparently SM should not be a subfaction linked to the general nightmerish lore of 40K but be transform mainly a vessel for player representation... In that sense is vital that SM can be canonically females.

Ok, but what's wrong with us basement dwelling guys having a male faction just for us? Does that push female hobbyist out of the hobby? It has always been a male dominated hobby, because guys don't grow up, only their toys get more expensive. I genuinely don't understand why every IP like 40k for example HAS to be equally represented regarding the lore and the models.

Well you could have a niche faction as Custodes being all male.

The flagship faction of psicoindoctrinated supersoldiers at the service of a dogmatic theocracy should be able to represent anyone and therefore be mixed gender.

But, why? What does space Marines being the poster boy faction have to do with it?

 Grimskul wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

Sisters, guard, inquisition, mechanicus, imperial navy, scions, commissars all have a great deal of space for growth.

One of those isn't a playable faction and three are the same faction.

It's why Miles Morales works, and new Ghost Busters doesn't.

Ghostbusters was just a bad film. It wasn't bad because "wiminz", it was bad because it tried to rehash an old film with a modern spin and failed miserably.

Thats my point. It tried to cram an existing property into goal posts without understanding what made the setting and story good to begin with. You can elevate a setting by bringing more into it, not by trying to change what it is in order to meet some prescribed quota.

And those are all positions in the lore where more characters can be grown out of without contradicting what came before.

It's also ironic that the new Ghost Busters also actively berated and shat on the existing fanbase and potential viewers by calling them all the "isms" under the sun if they didn't watch or like the movie and then were shocked when it did poorly. Similar to how so many people pushing for FSM inevitably use bigots and sexists that apparently exist as a major part of the community as their reason to push for this change and usually calling the majority of the fandom these very labels for not agreeing.

Which is partially why I brought it up.

Is there a potential element of misogyny amongst bad actors? Probably. Is it the main point of contention? Probably not.

You can positively make a setting more inclusive by growing it. You will fail when you try to change core characters, themes, or factions in a setting to meet that criteria. Another example of this is the new Star Wars trilogy and the overall attitude toward the established fan base vs the new disney + phase. One has been met positively both critically and by the fans, the other has not.

 Grimskul wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

Sisters, guard, inquisition, mechanicus, imperial navy, scions, commissars all have a great deal of space for growth.

One of those isn't a playable faction and three are the same faction.

It's why Miles Morales works, and new Ghost Busters doesn't.

Ghostbusters was just a bad film. It wasn't bad because "wiminz", it was bad because it tried to rehash an old film with a modern spin and failed miserably.

Thats my point. It tried to cram an existing property into goal posts without understanding what made the setting and story good to begin with. You can elevate a setting by bringing more into it, not by trying to change what it is in order to meet some prescribed quota.

And those are all positions in the lore where more characters can be grown out of without contradicting what came before.

It's also ironic that the new Ghost Busters also actively berated and shat on the existing fanbase and potential viewers by calling them all the "isms" under the sun if they didn't watch or like the movie and then were shocked when it did poorly. Similar to how so many people pushing for FSM inevitably use bigots and sexists that apparently exist as a major part of the community as their reason to push for this change and usually calling the majority of the fandom these very labels for not agreeing.

Still waiting for "neckbeard" to be wheeled out. It's like the Godwin's Law of nerd arguments.

I certainly never implied that bigots and bullies were any sort of majority. Though they definitely do exist in larger numbers than I would prefer. But yeah, most of the people in the hobby are perfectly nice.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
If you frame it that way it certainly dosent make much sense.

But apparently SM should not be a subfaction linked to the general nightmerish lore of 40K but be transform mainly a vessel for player representation... In that sense is vital that SM can be canonically females.

Ok, but what's wrong with us basement dwelling guys having a male faction just for us? Does that push female hobbyist out of the hobby? It has always been a male dominated hobby, because guys don't grow up, only their toys get more expensive. I genuinely don't understand why every IP like 40k for example HAS to be equally represented regarding the lore and the models.

Well you could have a niche faction as Custodes being all male.

The flagship faction of psicoindoctrinated supersoldiers at the service of a dogmatic theocracy should be able to represent anyone and therefore be mixed gender.

But, why? What does space Marines being the poster boy faction have to do with it?

Its some esoteric reasoning... Something on the lines of "representation needs visibility"... You know its complicated, after a 70 page thread things werent very clear.

But some people believe FSM could change completelly for the good the 40k community. Cant we give them the benefit of the doubt?

Delete

I don't care if they add female marines or not, I just want it to make sense and look good. Boob armor looks like trash, so only really factions like Space Wolves and Blood Angels, who have aesthetic as important pieces of their lore would even do it. Just add heads. Space wolves could get valkyries, which could be cool.
Necrons are cooler anyways.

Vatsetis wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
If you frame it that way it certainly dosent make much sense.

But apparently SM should not be a subfaction linked to the general nightmerish lore of 40K but be transform mainly a vessel for player representation... In that sense is vital that SM can be canonically females.

Ok, but what's wrong with us basement dwelling guys having a male faction just for us? Does that push female hobbyist out of the hobby? It has always been a male dominated hobby, because guys don't grow up, only their toys get more expensive. I genuinely don't understand why every IP like 40k for example HAS to be equally represented regarding the lore and the models.

Well you could have a niche faction as Custodes being all male.

The flagship faction of psicoindoctrinated supersoldiers at the service of a dogmatic theocracy should be able to represent anyone and therefore be mixed gender.

But, why? What does space Marines being the poster boy faction have to do with it?

Its some esoteric reasoning... Something on the lines of "representation needs visibility"... You know its complicated, after a 70 page thread things werent very clear.

But some people believe FSM could change completelly for the good the 40k community. Cant we give them the benefit of the doubt?

In my humble opinion: no. We're talking about introducing a massive change to both lore and models and it's still rather unclear to me what problem we are trying to solve with this.

Vatsetis wrote:
But some people believe FSM could change completelly for the good the 40k community. Cant we give them the benefit of the doubt?

No, because while ignorance is not a crime, unwillingness to learn is.

If these people who are pushing for FSM for the sake of inclusion, then obviously they're either born in the 50~60, or their thought process was heavily influenced by how men of those times viewed women.

Notions such as 'girly girl' are ideas and ideals we conjured up as a patriarchal society. We as society told women what they can be and what they can't be, and if you think adding boobs, making waist more slender, give more pretty faces to PLASTIC FIGURINES as a means of reparation or attracting more female players, you're just straight up buying into that old notion that really needs to be thrown out.

In a realistic sense, just as men who invest in their body to look like a male figures as represented in 40k are the least likely people to pick up this hobby, in parallel, women who invest in their body to form an hourglass shape with double F's and Kim Kardashian's butt are the least likely member of the population to pick up this hobby. So then, who are we trying to please by releasing 'visibly representational female figures'? - the target audience is the very population who look at women simply as "objects of desire".

You understand that someone born in the 1950-1960s would be 60-70 years old right? I don't know about your local scene but there ain't many seniors interested in either Warhammer or DakkaDakka round these parts.

 Gert wrote:
You understand that someone born in the 1950-1960s would be 60-70 years old right? I don't know about your local scene but there ain't many seniors interested in either Warhammer or DakkaDakka round these parts.

And if that's what you got out of my post, then you obviously missed the point.