Games Workshop and Sexism

[eldargal]

I forgot about Doctor Who, its up there as well. I didn't care for BSG

[Renegade]

Originally Posted by MaltonNecromancer View Post
I don't see why wanting to treat people fairly, with equal rights for all is so crazy. In a fictional setting, where mortal demigods bestride a galaxy torn by war, is it still such a shocking idea to imagine that some of the genetically engineed supersoldiers might have an XX chromosomal structure? Seriously, I don't get the rage.

Because there has never been FSMs, and way change it for the sake of it? If you dont like the fluff make up your own! Thats the long and short of it. You dont like the story, write your own, whos stopping you?

And where does equal right fit anywhere near 40K, except the right for anything to die, probably in a really horrible way.

If your pupil wants tyo play the game, then she should play the game, making out that there is something in the fluff that stops you is totally irrational.

[Freefall945]

See Freefall945, that's the best, and most intelligent dissection of the reasons why anyone has ever given me. It makes sense, and addresses the thematic concerns of the larger 40K narrative...

...To play Devil's Advocate, my counterpoint would draw on EldarGal's mention of Star Wars: Jedi are male and female, and have the whole warrior monk thing too. They like swords better than guns too.

Glad I could help. Where truth is a sword, an anvil, a holy tome; clarity is a whetstone, a pot of flux, a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

To counterpoint your counterpoint, I would say some things.

Firstly, and less seriously, you'll note that Eldargal considers Starwars inferior to Warhammer 40k, and I agree. It's fundamentally different, however, as Star Wars has a handful of powerful themes (The Lone Hero, the Order of Warrior-Sages, Good Triumphs over Evil...). The fusion of these themes creates something new - the Star Wars theme. It is the compliment of ideas that make it cool.

Warhammer 40k has hundreds of themes, all individually simple, and vigorous, made to smash against each other. The residue of this collision, collected on an adhesive laden canvas strewn beneath this violent intercourse of ideas, is the vast and stunning image of 40k. It is the contrast of ideas that make it cool.

I submit to you that 40k is richer that other settings primarily because of its diverse and contrasting origins. Marines are Knights Templar, smothered with the blood-sodden dirt of that wretched galaxy and presented for all to love, or hate. Every element they collide with represents something else, and often not something with a distinct presence on the moral scale. It's from this that we get the Black-On-Black morality 40k nuts are so fond of.

I would suggest to you that our lovely setting is richer for such exclusions. Any forbidden romances a female space marine might have with her male comrade sabotage the imagery in such a way as to be unforgivable. Far more precious that such a coveting, I find, is the kind of trepidation Marines must feel when they interact with women, knowing and understanding so little of them. Dan Abnett does a fine job of this in Horus Rising.

[MaltonNecromancer]

Freefall945: To counterpoint your idea - could there not be some male, some female, and some mixed chapters, thus giving us the best of all worlds?

Purely for arguement's sake, what if we say that the Black Templars are all male, which gives you your Knight Templars, exactly as described. By contrast, the Ultramarines, let's say, are more inclusive, and thus recruit from all humanity, not just 49% of the population, giving me the mix I want. When our chapters meet, they have even more reason to distrust and argue with each other. You can't deny that it would make for an interesting sit down when High Marshall Helbrecht has to parley with Sister-Captain Boudicca...

For me, one of 40K's strengths is it's inclusiveness - the idea that everything goes, including the stuff that contradicts the other stuff. Marine chapters are so individual and varied, this idea seems to give everyone what they want.

Renegade, you say

there has never been FSMs... why change it for the sake of it?

It's a little facietious, but I ask you, quite sincerely: why stay the same for the sake of it? Just because there have never been FSM's is no reason not to do them now. Purely playing Devil's Advocate: if the fluff changes, and FSM's become an option, to turn your argument on it's head - what's stopping you having an all-male chapter (like the example above)?

Nothing stops me having female marines... except a lack of plastic heads. Which I won't get unless the fluff changes! You've already got all the parts you need for your marines, and an upgrade sprue of female heads is far easier to do (and implement fluff-wise) than something like say, a full reboot of all the fluff and every single model in an existing line. And the new Dark Eldar proves that GW are capable of massive retcons and retools.

Fluff is, by it's nature, fluffy - it's malleable, and therefore allows scope for everything if they let it.

[eldargal]

Oh, going back a bit regarding female body armour, there is a growing body of evidence which says in fact female body armour should be shaped to match female contours. I tried a quick google but could only find this:
[url]http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Women-in-Law-Enforcement/Articles/2007/10/The-Shape-of-Womens-Body-Armor.aspx[/url]

Darting is the most common way to shape ballistic material around the bust. A dart is an overlapping of fabric at an angle. Creating darts at certain positions near the bust cinches the material at the correct points to contour to a woman's body. If the darts don't hit at the right point, the armor will follow the wrong contours and won't fit the officer. Not only can the wrong fit be unsightly, not having appropriate ballistic coverage is dangerous.
"If you put a male vest on a woman with an ample chest, the sides of her breasts are pushed out to the side and she has no side coverage on her chest," explains PT Armor's Glaze.

So, the idea that women on the battlefield would be wearing male shaped body armour and thus be indistinguishable from the male looks rather dubious.


MaltonNecromancer, I agree there are plenty of arguments in favour of FSMs, but the fact remains it would be a seismic change in the 40k fluff that would upset a great many people for no real need. We can have our FSMs in our own groups, and that is enough in my opinion.

[aemzed]

Just because you would like to **** them doesn't mean they're sexualized.

One could argue, for example, that Space Marines are sexualized, what with their large codpieces and huge shoulderpieces, and hell even the muscle armor that the BA douches wear. But Guard uniforms are pretty much functional military uniforms, slightly stylized at most. Orks are rippling with muscle, but that's because they're insane alien barbarians, not because of any inherent gender in them.

Hey, hey... I don't want to **** them... =) My point is that their masculine aspects are exaggerated. In our society, whether we like it or not, muscle and hardcore, physical strength are masculine attributes.

[Renegade]

It's a little facietious, but I ask you, quite sincerely: why stay the same for the sake of it?

|Because then you change the story. They are no longer sons of the Emperor or Primarch 'X', but daughters as well. If the background upsets your sensiblities, dont read it, make your own.

Nothing stops me having female marines... except a lack of plastic heads.

Excuses, just keep the helmets on or they are just as ugly as male SM, either way, its still just and excuse, not even the scales are right as is.

[aemzed]

I've not been in an actual battle, no, but I've been a historical reenactor since I was little, not SCA stuff but proper accurate 'living history' and I have participated in plenty of massed combats as well as extensive training with my brothers and others. Larger breasts may get in the way, but there are plenty of other things that could make you less than efficient as a soldier too, such as being of above average height or width.
I'm not trying to claim the way GW depicts females is always sensible, I'm just responding to your erroneous suggestion that a woman with DDs could not use a sword well. They can.
You don't seem comfortable, quite the opposite, given that you can not seem to engage in a mature discussion about breasts without resorting to petty insults or a patronising attitude. I am perfectly comfortable with my sexuality, I don't need to hide it behind an assumed veil of indifference or masculinity. I am proud of femininity and I am not going to pretend otherwise. I have a picture of myself in my avatar, yes, not because it shows my breasts (which are hardly prominent in the picture) but because it is me in the picture. To the best of my knowledge and belief I have never used my gender as a talking point (beyond, perhaps, some friendly banter in the Oubliette) as you seem to suggest.

You may say otherwise but your attitude is simply one of denying your femininity. I do not do so, and I get plenty of flak from other women about it, but I'm not going to change myself to appease the insecurities of others. How men may or may not view me and my anatomy is entirely irrelevent, and I hardly behave like in a slatternly fashion. Furthemore, I challenge anyone to argue that I have not made a significant intellectual contribution to this forum, that I am 'eye-candy'.

Of course I know that.. I did my stalker homework on your profile before accusing you of anything.

So anyways, I quote:

"Larger breasts may get in the way, but there are plenty of other things that could make you less than efficient as a soldier too, such as being of above average height or width."

Thank you. End of discussion.

I don't care how much you have contributed to this forum. I try and stay away from bols in general, however last night my boyfriend exclaimed there was a hilarious letter on the forever amusing topic of sexism and GW, so I had to contribute. It is a topic I enjoy, because I often feel my opinion, as woman, is often misrepresented. Why not throw another opinion in the works?

I never said I am denying my femininity, I said that I don't feel the need to amplify it.

I'm sorry I attacked you, but I explained why and I apologised.
I just calls em like I sees em.

We are not discussing tactics here, we are discussing a social political issue, so 8 posts or 8000 posts is beside the point.

[eldargal]

They get in the way slightly, but in no way compromise ones ability to wield a sword while doing so. Your basic point is still erroneous.

[aemzed]

They get in the way slightly, but in no way compromise ones ability to wield a sword while doing so. Your basic point is still erroneous.

Slightly is still something more than nothing, which is what you originally stated. We are not discussing statistical differences, we are discussing if they hinder the woman's abilities at all. Which they do. My original point was that the larger the breasts, the more difficulty said plastic figurine would have when fighting other plastic figurines.