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.

The Age of Strife happened because the Eldar fethed up on a monumental scale. The setting in no way suggests the IoM in predestined to exist.

Anyway, aliens are no more perfidous than humanity themselves. Most of the highest profile events in the history of the IoM have been civil wars not alien invasions (until M41 it was pretty much just the War of the Beast vs a bunch of massive civil wars).

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

robbienw wrote:Of course its justifiable. The imperium is the only thing standing in the way of mankinds extinction, its extremisn is entirely neccessay.

Only because the Imperium *destroys everything else that could provide an alternative*.

The Interex.
The Auretian Technocracy.
Gue'vesa.
Countless other human group destroyed in the Great Crusade.

The Imperium is even *actively* welcomed for negotiation with the Tau, and guess what? The Imperium tries to wipe them out.

The Imperium are not the good guys, and are not justified to do what they do. They never have been. If, for a moment, you think the Imperium are justified, I kindly remind you that even GW disagrees with you, and have told you that you should not be idolising the Imperium in any way.

robbienw wrote: Its a ridiculous position to take. Its a fictional setting, the main threats in which are highly unrealistic aliens and magically corrupted humans which bear no relation to anything in real life.

But women soldiers are a step too far?

I'm not idolising anyone, I'm not sure why you would say that. I'm saying how the imperium in 40k works and why it does what it does, because the other 'alternative' societies have already been proven not to work in pre-imperial times, and the imperium doesn't have time to waste.

There are plenty of women soldiers in 40k.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

robbienw wrote:
I think you need to come back to reality and not immediately switch to reductio ad nazium when somebody says something you don't like about 40k. Its a ridiculous position to take. Its a fictional setting, the main threats in which are highly unrealistic aliens and magically corrupted humans which bear no relation to anything in real life.

But it's not ridiculous to take a misogynistic stance on a game of toy soldiers in a fictional setting because someone made a change you don't like?

Seems potentially equally rediculous to demand change of a product designed by men and aimed at boys/men. I would personally feel a bit ridiculous asking for equal representation in Barbie dolls or romance novels. Like, it's just not my space and I'm ok with that.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

robbienw wrote:
I think you need to come back to reality and not immediately switch to reductio ad nazium when somebody says something you don't like about 40k. Its a ridiculous position to take. Its a fictional setting, the main threats in which are highly unrealistic aliens and magically corrupted humans which bear no relation to anything in real life.

But it's not ridiculous to take a misogynistic stance on a game of toy soldiers in a fictional setting because someone made a change you don't like?

Seems potentially equally rediculous to demand change of a product designed by men and aimed at boys/men. I would personally feel a bit ridiculous asking for equal representation in Barbie dolls or romance novels. Like, it's just not my space and I'm ok with that.

Barbie does have equal representation. You have Barbie, and you have Ken.

I think that's all of it, but as a reminder, please do keep reporting and a mod will, when able to, investigate and intervene where needed.

robbienw wrote:I'm saying how the imperium in 40k works and why it does what it does, because the other 'alternative' societies have already been proven not to work in pre-imperial times, and the imperium doesn't have time to waste.

The Tau disprove that. Humans live in the Tau Empire without a problem.
Plus, you say "were proven not to work" - yes, because the Imperium *killed them*.
The Imperium are not justified, nor as they the "only chance" for humanity's survival.

There are plenty of women soldiers in 40k.

But only where they're "allowed" to be, right?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Like, it's just not my space and I'm ok with that.

See, there's the rub: 40k isn't your space, or really even men's space. It's GW's space, and they get make or break the setting.

 Crimson wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
I feel like this scrum over whether the Imperium is justified could be solved by just linking the "For everyone" post and we could leave it there.

Well. I don't think the writers intended to create allegorical apologism of fascism. But they ended up creating one by accident.

I mostly blame Black Library for this shift. When it was just a wargame, there was certain detachment to it. You could just describe the horrors of the setting, then the tiny toy soldiers fought. But once you start to write novels, you kinda need to have at least somewhat likeable characters, and easiest way to do so is to write such people as heroes. And as everyone likes marines, those heroes will be marines, and so then starts the shift from amoral murder machines to shiny and gallant defenders of humanity. I think the return of Guilliman was the culmination of this trend, where he is portrayed as this noble saviour. Not the de facto leader of this fascist totalitarian hellstate is someone who look like a hero and who is written as one. It is just quite disgusting and has really soured the 40K lore for me.

I think the core issue is just that the original satire isn't particularly interesting anymore. There's not really any further depths of uncaring systematic corruption left to mine out of the setting and attempts to tell new stories are limited by it all pretty much having been done. Yes, yes, we're sacrificing this entire planet due to a greedy governor allowing alien/demonic corruption in for personal gain. Billions dead. So tragic.

I know people don't want the marines to be the good guys, but realistically, its the more interesting story and challenging at this point. The return of relics of better days seeing how far things have fallen trying to make the Imperium into what it once aspired to be. The true hurdles of the setting being superstition and entrenched power structures. Taking accountability for attrocities committed so that different societies can unite against unimaginable threats. There's no end to the horrors, but you can actually frame them as horrible again with a shift in perspective.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

robbienw wrote:
I think you need to come back to reality and not immediately switch to reductio ad nazium when somebody says something you don't like about 40k. Its a ridiculous position to take. Its a fictional setting, the main threats in which are highly unrealistic aliens and magically corrupted humans which bear no relation to anything in real life.

But it's not ridiculous to take a misogynistic stance on a game of toy soldiers in a fictional setting because someone made a change you don't like?

Seems potentially equally rediculous to demand change of a product designed by men and aimed at boys/men. I would personally feel a bit ridiculous asking for equal representation in Barbie dolls or romance novels. Like, it's just not my space and I'm ok with that.

Barbie does have equal representation. You have Barbie, and you have Ken.

That's incredibly disingenous, you know for a fact that Ken is not the main focus in Barbie and has far less toys and options/outfits, he's basically an accessory to the main line.

 Grimskul wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Barbie does have equal representation. You have Barbie, and you have Ken.

That's incredibly disingenous, you know for a fact that Ken is not the main focus in Barbie and has far less toys and options/outfits, he's basically an accessory to the main line.

We got an entire movie about this!

 Insectum7 wrote:

Seems potentially equally rediculous to demand change of a product designed by men and aimed at boys/men. I would personally feel a bit ridiculous asking for equal representation in Barbie dolls or romance novels. Like, it's just not my space and I'm ok with that.

I think this might be part of the direction that's emerging though; YES, in 1987, a game was made by men for boys/men as the primary target. Funny though, once you're approaching four decades, there are societal changes that may have to be addressed.

In the 80's most RPGs and Video Games were also made by men for boys... But holy crap has that changed. World of Darkness blew up male domination of RPGs. Once Anne Rice fans found out there was a roleplaying game for them, and RPG's weren't just "Conan the Barbarian" anymore, other game companies stated to think "Hmmm- these women are not only players... They're customers!"

Video games too.

And it leads to inclusion at the design and conceptual stage. If you look at GW's design ethos since 8th, it's very much been "Get every player: Some will stay and some will not, so get them ALL!" This is why there have been three ways to play since 8th. And this is why core design took cues from TCG's. What, you like nerd card games? Well guess what? We've got cards. Like RPG's? Let me introduce you to Crusade. Want something faster and easier? Let's talk Open/ Combat Patrol.

And women fit in. When's the last all male tale of four gamers/warlords in WD? We've had WH+ Masterclass run by a woman, we've got female WD staff. And I think that things are being designed to appeal to a broader base. A game by men for boys/men can coast on it's considerable inertia for some time. But the writing IS on the wall- eventually, you aren't going to be able to survive with a product that excludes 50% of the market by design. So incremental changes now allow us to arrive at a place where the customer base is as broad as it needs to be before it's too late.

Kinda like the way ALL car companies are now exploring EV's, not just Tesla. Because you've got to be prepared to be nimble enough to adapt to the changing marketplace- and sometimes that means getting ahead of the curve, because if the curve comes and you've done no prep, it's often too late to shift gears.

 Grimskul wrote:
That's incredibly disingenous, you know for a fact that Ken is not the main focus in Barbie and has far less toys and options/outfits, he's basically an accessory to the main line.

And now you know why anyone who shouts, "But Sisters!" is wrong.

The thing is that the Imperium never aspired to be anything but what it is. The Emperor was a fascist tyrant from day 1, launching his campaign for Lebensraum and an eternal Reich secured by his Ubermensch and with him as it's Fuhrer. Sure he can claim he meant to step back and let others take over later, but people such as Augustus Caesar said the same thing. Here's the spoiler, they never did.

There is still plenty of room for satire in 40k using modern events as inspiration, it is just that GW won't do it because it would threaten their bottom line more to actually turn satire against modern authoritarian movements than just allowing their world to become fascist propaganda.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
That's incredibly disingenous, you know for a fact that Ken is not the main focus in Barbie and has far less toys and options/outfits, he's basically an accessory to the main line.

And now you know why anyone who shouts, "But Sisters!" is wrong.

I mean, Ken is a massive afterthought, whilest sisters were one of the oldest incorporated factions, just GW criminaly disregarded them so it's not the gotcha you think it is.

 Grimskul wrote:


That's incredibly disingenous, you know for a fact that Ken is not the main focus in Barbie and has far less toys and options/outfits, he's basically an accessory to the main line.

So you're saying it is possible to have representation of both sexes in a toy line without it damaging the brands targeting towards its demographic?

So, what is the problem with female custodes again?

robbienw wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I mean, has it really put off a lot of existing fans? I've seen allusions to videos that claim it has, but it does not seem to have put off genuine fans more than most retcons do.

I can only go on what I've seen on various forums and social media sites, but it seems to have put a lot of genuine fans off yes. Its seems to have also brought in a lot of non-fans whose sole objective seems to be to gloat over the retcon and abuse people who aren't in favour of it.

So we lost a few people? So what? They'll be replaced soon enough twice over with brand new players who don't know anything about a Custodes. Let alone are concerned about female Custodes.....

As for non-fans entering gloating & "abusing"? Pay them no mind. Thier opinions don't matter.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
That's incredibly disingenous, you know for a fact that Ken is not the main focus in Barbie and has far less toys and options/outfits, he's basically an accessory to the main line.

And now you know why anyone who shouts, "But Sisters!" is wrong.

Except 40k isn't just about Marines, but Barbie is about Barbie.
The idea that everyone has to play second fiddle to marines is rather disrespectful for those who don't play them or want to play them. I care little for such favoritism, especially when it already resulted in some factions being outright neglected.

ccs wrote:

robbienw wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I mean, has it really put off a lot of existing fans? I've seen allusions to videos that claim it has, but it does not seem to have put off genuine fans more than most retcons do.

I can only go on what I've seen on various forums and social media sites, but it seems to have put a lot of genuine fans off yes. Its seems to have also brought in a lot of non-fans whose sole objective seems to be to gloat over the retcon and abuse people who aren't in favour of it.

So we lost a few people? So what? They'll be replaced soon enough twice over with brand new players who don't know anything about a Custodes. Let alone are concerned about female Custodes.....

As for non-fans entering gloating & "abusing"? Pay them no mind. Thier opinions don't matter.

And if we did lose a few people, they're probably the ones the community is better off without.

Cyel wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


But let me flip that argument around. Let’s say the inclusion of female models in a given game doesn’t increase female players or customers?

You’d then have to demonstrate it’s caused a direct detriment to the game for it to matter.

Unfortunately, you can't flip arguments like that. That's why a defendant in court isn't asked to provide evidence that they didn't commit the crime and why a theist's "counterargument" of "but you don't have evidence that god isn't real" makes no logical sense.

The burden of proof is on the one making a claim.

Btw, I don't care either way. I was just wondering if evidence can be provided to support the claim that increased number of female models increases female participation in a wargame or if it is just a shower thought. I have never played Guild Ball (which I regret!) or a wargame with similar representation of female models so I was wondering if members of these communities can confirm or disprove this correlation.

I stil stand by my (lifelong observation supported) shower thought that increasing the number of cute animal models would do a much better job in that respect.

In my experience, there was a larger percentage of women playing Warmachine and Confrontation than Warhammer. Both games had better representation thsn 40k (which does not say much)

I have nothing but anecdotal evidence on the matter, and there were still more men than women- especially among the regional competition scenes.

On a similar note, the number of women playing RPGs over my lifetime seems to have increased quite a lot- and it does correspond with an increase in representation in the art and lore.

I can also note that women who are fans of current fantasy novels favor authors with more equal representation, and don't seem very attracted to the new books that are very unequal.

(Notwithstanding that most of those women like Tolkien in spite of his lack of representation- none of them seem to enjoy Tolkien because if it. Go figure).

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

You cut out the rest of my post. Clearly, fantasy racism against fantasy races is part of the setting and an important part of the satire of real life racism. Similarly fantasy genocide of fantasy peoples can satirize real violence and real injustices without depicting the actual genocides of actual people.

Once again, you see this all the time in Sci Fi and fantasy. Gul Dukat works as a genocidal monster character because he is a Cardassian, a made up race who committed war crimes on a made up people. If you made a show with a charismatic antagonist based on a real Nazi who oversaw a real concentration camp, it wouldn’t work.

I'm scratching my head as to what you're arguing here.

You say that fantasy racism is okay and part of the setting, so long as it involves fictional races. However, the Imperium comprises thousands of worlds. Surely virtually all of them will involve fictional races/ethnicities? Not only that, but race/ethnicity seems to be largely defined by world.

Surely Cadians being racist towards Catachans or Vostroyans would amount to fictional racism?

 vipoid wrote:
Surely Cadians being racist towards Catachans or Vostroyans would amount to fictional racism?

Do you have any examples of this? Not to mention that it's likely less "racist" as we know it, but more likely "cultural".

 odinsgrandson wrote:

Cyel wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


But let me flip that argument around. Let’s say the inclusion of female models in a given game doesn’t increase female players or customers?

You’d then have to demonstrate it’s caused a direct detriment to the game for it to matter.

Unfortunately, you can't flip arguments like that. That's why a defendant in court isn't asked to provide evidence that they didn't commit the crime and why a theist's "counterargument" of "but you don't have evidence that god isn't real" makes no logical sense.

The burden of proof is on the one making a claim.

Btw, I don't care either way. I was just wondering if evidence can be provided to support the claim that increased number of female models increases female participation in a wargame or if it is just a shower thought. I have never played Guild Ball (which I regret!) or a wargame with similar representation of female models so I was wondering if members of these communities can confirm or disprove this correlation.

I stil stand by my (lifelong observation supported) shower thought that increasing the number of cute animal models would do a much better job in that respect.

On a similar note, the number of women playing RPGs over my lifetime seems to have increased quite a lot- and it does correspond with an increase in representation in the art, lore and creators.

I suspect its because RPGs are more of a social game. You can really get into the character and its just not combat sequence after combat sequence, there's interactions with NPCs and party members as well.
Even when it comes to video games there seems to be a high percentage of women playing CRPGs than women playing TBS or RTS games, and Warhammer is more of a TBS game than a RPG.
According to a quantic foundry survey from 2017, JRPG's female audience is around 33%, Western RPG is around 26%, whereas TBS are only 11% and Grand Strategy is only 7%.

Curiously, there is a huge disparity between High Fantasy MMOs and Sci Fi MMOs, with 36% in the former and 16% in the later. Not sure why that is, just an interesting tidbit.
Would be interesting to see if this correlates with WHFB and AoS; do those systems have more women playing them, compared to 40k?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:


That's incredibly disingenous, you know for a fact that Ken is not the main focus in Barbie and has far less toys and options/outfits, he's basically an accessory to the main line.

So you're saying it is possible to have representation of both sexes in a toy line without it damaging the brands targeting towards its demographic?

So, what is the problem with female custodes again?

No, what I'm saying is that you're wrong about them being equal in the Barbie brand which frankly I think is fine that Ken is not a major focus of the Barbie toy line given that the target demographic is clearly towards girls and that I wouldn't push for Barbie to overcompensate and funnel resources towards Ken being more marketable towards boys, just like I don't think 40k needs to try and capture this mythical "female market" by making arbitrary changes to existing factions that is clearly happened due to non-in universe reasons. (and yes, I'm not happy about how shoehorned Centurions and other "they were always there" lore-handwave additions that have occurred in 40k as well).

While it is logical to assume that the various peoples and races of humankind would be very different in such a far future, the presentation is that most humans look like white people with western European ancestry. Most of the distict human cultures have very clear cultural parallels to real world cultures.

Contrast this with The Stormlight Archives fantasy series that portrays many different races of humans that seem to actually be different from modern day analogues.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Seems potentially equally rediculous to demand change of a product designed by men and aimed at boys/men. I would personally feel a bit ridiculous asking for equal representation in Barbie dolls or romance novels. Like, it's just not my space and I'm ok with that.

I think this might be part of the direction that's emerging though; YES, in 1987, a game was made by men for boys/men as the primary target. Funny though, once you're approaching four decades, there are societal changes that may have to be addressed.

In the 80's most RPGs and Video Games were also made by men for boys... But holy crap has that changed. World of Darkness blew up male domination of RPGs. Once Anne Rice fans found out there was a roleplaying game for them, and RPG's weren't just "Conan the Barbarian" anymore, other game companies stated to think "Hmmm- these women are not only players... They're customers!"

Video games too.

And it leads to inclusion at the design and conceptual stage. If you look at GW's design ethos since 8th, it's very much been "Get every player: Some will stay and some will not, so get them ALL!" This is why there have been three ways to play since 8th. And this is why core design took cues from TCG's. What, you like nerd card games? Well guess what? We've got cards. Like RPG's? Let me introduce you to Crusade. Want something faster and easier? Let's talk Open/ Combat Patrol.

And women fit in. When's the last all male tale of four gamers/warlords in WD? We've had WH+ Masterclass run by a woman, we've got female WD staff. And I think that things are being designed to appeal to a broader base. A game by men for boys/men can coast on it's considerable inertia for some time. But the writing IS on the wall- eventually, you aren't going to be able to survive with a product that excludes 50% of the market by design. So incremental changes now allow us to arrive at a place where the customer base is as broad as it needs to be before it's too late.

Kinda like the way ALL car companies are now exploring EV's, not just Tesla. Because you've got to be prepared to be nimble enough to adapt to the changing marketplace- and sometimes that means getting ahead of the curve, because if the curve comes and you've done no prep, it's often too late to shift gears.

I get that. I get all of that. But I'm still not miffed about Barbie not being "for" both men and women. And I'm not sure how much of the drive for inclusion in 40k is a genuine desire by women who feel excluded to get into 40k, or just part of the overall inclusivity sweep of broader culture, but amplified because of the click-bait controversy brought on by poking the bear of a largely male subculture.

I'd be curious if there was any data on it. Genuine interest in taking part vs. feather in the cap of the inclusiveness trend.

I'd also be curious to know how many potential players don't play 40k at all because of all male Space Marines, vs players who just choose one of the many other factions. I sure don't like the torture-for-torture's-sake Dark Eldar, or the uberchad (and chadette now) Custodes, or ANY Primaris, but I just choose not to play them.

PenitentJake wrote:

In the 80's most RPGs and Video Games were also made by men for boys... But holy crap has that changed.

There's some super interesting history behind the video game bit of this specifically. Prior to the Atari crash, video games had a pretty significant female market. The reason arcade cabinets were so common in bars and restaurants was because they had this sort of universal popularity that made them good activities to bond over at date spots.

Post crash, games were more limited to home consoles which is where you saw the industry bend towards being male dominated. Home computers were one of those tech/science hobbies that boys were primarily encouraged to pursue and fatefully, when the NES had to be sold as a robot toy in the US, Sears put it in the boys toy section of the catalog. That first wave of the NES remained pretty gender neutral with a fair number of female protagonists, but by the late 80's the industry had locked in on that "target demographic" and ran it into the ground.

Disney lost money on Star Wars by realigning the story to a new demographic. Games Workshop wants to explore those same waters. They will do so regardless of what anyone has to say.

The only point to threads like these is to generate animus between people who want to love the brand and allow anyone who disagrees to be beaten down and demoralized. It's not worth anyone's time.

If you don't like the new direction, stop spending money with GW. You don't have to stop playing the game, just stop buying new models, paints and books. You can get just about anything for less buying it second hand off eBay or Facebook (amongst the many, many other options modern hobbyists have for getting or making models.) Unsubscribe from their social media and marketing emails, all they really do these days is tell you how to spend your money. Remove any apps from your phone, they provide way more value to the company than anything you get out of using them.

Aside from saving time and money, you get back a little bit of your life. There's something liberating about rejecting any group that's openly resentful towards you, especially one that demands so much of your attention and imagination. Corporations shape and influence the way you look at the world in ways you're not really aware of until you stop giving them your time / talent / money. Once you start to see it, you enter this enlightened state where you wonder why you ever fell for marketing gimmicks in the first place.

Games Workshop is ultimately a business concern where the majority of it's earnings comes from the sales of plastic models. They absolutely rely on the brand equity of their product for people to continue buying models in the face of secondary markets and modern technological trends. The lore is a major part of that brand and future profitability depends on keeping it aligned with consumer sentiment. AB InBev (makers of Bud Light) carried out a similar brand pivot last year and are now spending hundreds of millions annually on sponsorships with UFC, shooting sports, edgy entertainers, and the like trying to get it back. That's not a bad outcome. On the other end of the spectrum, Hasbro's deal volume with Star Wars merch is at about 15% of where it was before Disney acquired the franchise. While I'd rather see a healthy Hasbro / Star Wars franchise, these figures are very much in line with the sentiment expressed above.

This is all a long way of saying: they are right, you don't belong and that's actually a good thing. Sit back and learn to appreciate what happens.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:

Cyel wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


But let me flip that argument around. Let’s say the inclusion of female models in a given game doesn’t increase female players or customers?

You’d then have to demonstrate it’s caused a direct detriment to the game for it to matter.

Unfortunately, you can't flip arguments like that. That's why a defendant in court isn't asked to provide evidence that they didn't commit the crime and why a theist's "counterargument" of "but you don't have evidence that god isn't real" makes no logical sense.

The burden of proof is on the one making a claim.

Btw, I don't care either way. I was just wondering if evidence can be provided to support the claim that increased number of female models increases female participation in a wargame or if it is just a shower thought. I have never played Guild Ball (which I regret!) or a wargame with similar representation of female models so I was wondering if members of these communities can confirm or disprove this correlation.

I stil stand by my (lifelong observation supported) shower thought that increasing the number of cute animal models would do a much better job in that respect.

On a similar note, the number of women playing RPGs over my lifetime seems to have increased quite a lot- and it does correspond with an increase in representation in the art, lore and creators.

I suspect its because RPGs are more of a social game. You can really get into the character and its just not combat sequence after combat sequence, there's interactions with NPCs and party members as well.
Even when it comes to video games there seems to be a high percentage of women playing CRPGs than women playing TBS or RTS games, and Warhammer is more of a TBS game than a RPG.
According to a quantic foundry survey from 2017, JRPG's female audience is around 33%, Western RPG is around 26%, whereas TBS are only 11% and Grand Strategy is only 7%.

Curiously, there is a huge disparity between High Fantasy MMOs and Sci Fi MMOs, with 36% in the former and 16% in the later. Not sure why that is, just an interesting tidbit.
Would be interesting to see if this correlates with WHFB and AoS; do those systems have more women playing them, compared to 40k?

It’s always hard to know why for these, even with fairly good data. I love sci fi, but I rarely find sci fi in gaming that’s for me. So I get way more fantasy and probably am even more aware of what’s going on in the genre.
Grand strategy I could imagine could even just be a time thing, I don’t have enough time for them.. But I enjoy it a lot. As well as just a lack of awareness for the genre in general for a wider audience.
If no women are able to talk about it with other women, just form not knowing its existence is a interesting topic as well.

But going a bit further out, in the gacha market that’s so focused on a Male audience it’s genshin impact that effectively controls the market. And it’s got a massive player base outside of the typical market.
And with HSR being sci fi, that didn’t change. Despite market expectations women are involved intimately across the entire space for the game.
Ironically other games struggle to get that audience attention, often as they lean further into trying to market to men.

A little of topic, but hope it’s ok.

On participation? Who’s playing what is a limited metric, as there are plenty of folk who paint, but don’t play. And of those who do play, not everyone is doing so in FLGS or Club.

 LunarSol wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

In the 80's most RPGs and Video Games were also made by men for boys... But holy crap has that changed.

There's some super interesting history behind the video game bit of this specifically. Prior to the Atari crash, video games had a pretty significant female market. The reason arcade cabinets were so common in bars and restaurants was because they had this sort of universal popularity that made them good activities to bond over at date spots.

Post crash, games were more limited to home consoles which is where you saw the industry bend towards being male dominated. Home computers were one of those tech/science hobbies that boys were primarily encouraged to pursue and fatefully, when the NES had to be sold as a robot toy in the US, Sears put it in the boys toy section of the catalog. That first wave of the NES remained pretty gender neutral with a fair number of female protagonists, but by the late 80's the industry had locked in on that "target demographic" and ran it into the ground.

One of the sad cases of "I wonder what could have been?" unfortunately.

The thing is, there's still gaming products aimed at boys though, and some aimed at girls, and some for everybody.