A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[The_Gonk]

Even in female dominated industries male privilege kicks in because people will assume the man must be more competent to be there at all.

Previously posted:

I've posted huge amounts of evidence in these topics actually.....
[URL="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/how-to-make-25-million-be-a-man-go-to-university/article17135247/"]Another article about teh earnings gap between educated men and women[/URL]

Then look at the social stigma attached to being a career driven woman. Bad mother, b1tch, bossy, unlikeable etc. All those surveys which find that men don't like successful women and on and on it goes. Then the whole thing about women being steered away from 'male' roles like business, leadership positions, politics and ven sport, STEM fields etc. ALL this is related to male privilege.

From the link quoted (emphasis mine):
"the study places the blame on many more women choosing to work in the public sector in areas such as education, health and public administration. Graduates who reach the top of their careers in the private sector earn outsized returns, particularly for men, whose salary premiums are more than double those of women. In the public sector, successful women actually out earn men but have much lower incomes."

So, there's a problem in the Private Sector? Possibly. However, women are choosing, according to the link provided, to work in the public sector. Earnings potential is inherently limited by the nature of that sector and this skews the figures. However, in that sector women out earn men.

This:

Even in female dominated industries male privilege kicks in because people will assume the man must be more competent to be there at all.

is a flat out lie/wrong according to the source previously relied upon.

So, as in the firearm thread, the source is being misused by emphasising the headline and removing/ignoring any of the nuance from the text/data and building a house of hyperbole on it. Never let facts get in the way of a good opinion though, eh?

For interest, you may wish to read Professor Simon Baron-Cohen's work on autism particularly as to how it may relate to differences in the take up of STEM roles. No, if you're wondering, it doesn't say male privilege causes the difference!

[Charon]

Fluff reasons, that could be easily retconned, aren't real reasons.

Retcons are indeed real reasons. There are still people who hate how they turned necrons into space mummies with pokemon c'tan. It is ok to change a story by going into deeper details (like they did with HH) but you will alienate a lot of fans by changing storys completely. While I support the claim that GW really should produce more female models. I want to stay away from "female space marines" for the same reason I ould not like to have John, Jack and James the brave sisters of battle.

[The_Gonk]

Fluff reasons, that could be easily retconned, aren't real reasons.

Fluff reasons are real reasons if you think that retcons might harm your business (I don't know if it would or not). Given that the universe is one of the big draws to the product I would guess (it is a guess) they probably consider big fluff changes in that context.

I can't think of any good reason why you shouldn't have more female sculpts though. I can think of a lot good fluff arguments why you wouldn't if they cared to make them, in brief for:

Space Marines (If it's more effort to make these from girls then why expend the extra effort in an already high risk process)?
Eldar (If their reproductive process is similar to humans, meaning the male has the ability to produce many, many offspring in a lifetime compared to the female's few then your males are more disposable when the species is on the line.)

My view on both of these would be if it ain't broke don't fix it. Space Marines are massive sellers, leave them alone. Eldar do well, leave them alone.

[Houghten]

Orks: NOT ONE FEMALE.

Not one male, either. They might be called "boyz" (and the writers keep on using "he" in the third person because the default person is male, which is its own kind of problematic) but they're still fungus.

Tyranids: The Tervigon. Possibly every other tyranid except the Genestealers... although there has never been any confirmation besides fanwank that says 'Tyranids are like ants', but you know what? Why don't we say 23% of Tyranids are female? Why not?

Most of them don't even have digestive systems - why would they have any sex/gender at all?

Fluff reasons, that could be easily retconned, aren't real reasons.

Surely fluff reasons are the only valid reasons? Whereas reasons like "it's too expensive" are the easily shot-down bull.

[daboarder]

Man, the stupidity in this thread....

The deliberate attempts to find insult where there is none for no other reason than to be insulted is just mind boggling. I have never seen people deliberately twist a statement so much to make a point outside of politics. In fact I actually have to question the literacy of some people who seem to unable to understand the context in which a statement is made. I don't know whether there is any point actually responding but I'm going to try.

Allow me to pose a question.

What is the difference between the Dungeons and Dragons, and the Warhammer fantasy setting?

Both are what could be called fantasy settings, with limited technology, actual gods, magic, good and evil.

so what make them distinct?

It is the details. The little things, the small things that exist for no other reason than to add depth to the world. Things like the way magic works, the relationship between gods and mortals, the factions and their unique histories.
If you want everything to be a completely fair and equal representation of what the world should be like, then the only logical conclusion is that every setting would wind up with the same bland and boring details, because any change in those details would mean that someone somewhere would be under represented, or vilified, or stereotyped.
THAT is the homogeneity that was being discussed.

Removing the limitation on male only space marines, for no reason than to ensure all armies have a 50/50 gender split, would be a removal of one of the small details that breathes life and uniqueness into the Setting of 40k. And if it is being done for no other reason than to prevent potential insult then it is being done for a bad reason.

The exact same statement would apply to the sisters of battle, the restriction on men at arms in the ranks of the ecclesiarch is ridiculous for all the same reasons that the limitation on geneseed "science" is ridiculous.
But it is one of the details that makes us care about this crazy messed up place and as such it is important.

As important as the rest of them.

[eldargal]

Man, the stupidity in this thread....

The deliberate attempts to find insult where there is none for no other reason than to be insulted is just mind boggling. I have never seen people deliberately twist a statement so much to make a point outside of politics. In fact I actually have to question the literacy of some people who seem to unable to understand the context in which a statement is made. I don't know whether there is any point actually responding but I'm going to try.

Yeah it is amazing how many sad little sacks of **** are so offended by the idea of more women being in a scifi setting.

If you want everything to be a completely fair and equal representation of what the world should be like, then the only logical conclusion is that every setting would wind up with the same bland and boring details, because any change in those details would mean that someone somewhere would be under represented, or vilified, or stereotyped.
THAT is the homogeneity that was being discussed.

See, this is what I mean by ****ing insane. You are saying that including more women in armies that could have them makes it m ore homogenous than the current situation where it is all men. Because somehow having 50% eldar women and 50% human women would make everything even more homomgenous than 90% eldar men and 100% human men. It's ****ing ridiculous.

[DWest]

He's not ranting, he is calling you on your bull****.

No, saying "I won't convince anyone but I'm right" is ranting. For the record, I'd like to see gender parity among the factions, the only exception being Space Marines*, so long as the story value of them being mono-gender is retained. If GW doesn't maintain that storyline to a high quality, then yes, bring on the female heads.

*Yes, that means Necrons too. The rank-n-file wouldn't change, as the common citizenry didn't merit individualized chassis, but a female Overlord (Overlady?) would be cool to see.

[daboarder]

Yeah it is amazing how many sad little sacks of **** are so offended by the idea of more women being in a scifi setting.

Its amazing how many posters don't read posts in an attempt to be insulted.

Seriously eldargal you being belligerent and bigoted. And hell don't even get me started on Yorks claims about tyranids being "Male" I mean where the hell he got that idea?

To be fair, a lot of GW fluff has female characters in it. It's just not reflected in their miniatures range. Gaunts Ghosts, plenty of female characters. The Ravenor series, same. Eisenhorn series, same again. The only real exception is Space Marines.

And this is a good thing. Female characters is great. Diversity is good. Symmetry just makes the story shallow

I agree.

Fantasy Flight Games has been good about including great illustrations of female characters in their 40k RPG line. There are some inspiring female imperial guard in Only War.

Even just a handful of female guard figures would go a long way, but GW seems to want to stay an all boys club.

Surely adding more identical sports but in different sex is just adding more homogeneousness, that is more of the same. Maybe they should just have 1 event and the best regardless of sex compete. Now that's equality!

I do agree with your overriding point though that amongst humans there are very few female moulds. I should say for the record that I don't count space marines (of any flavour) to be human, as they are transhuman. So we are left with Sisters and Imperial Guard (or whatever they wish to be called now).

Sisters are left in a strange limbo. I think that they could be a great army, but they need proper thought to make them more than just female "space marines". I just hope that they have justice done to them.

The IG is another one where it would not be difficult to as a minimum include a female head or two in the standard box. There is an argument that super fit female in standard combat fatigues and flakk jacket would only be distinguishable because of a more feminine face. Obviously an out and out fmeale sculpt would be better, as long as it wasn't some bizarre characature.

Retcons are indeed real reasons. There are still people who hate how they turned necrons into space mummies with pokemon c'tan. It is ok to change a story by going into deeper details (like they did with HH) but you will alienate a lot of fans by changing storys completely. While I support the claim that GW really should produce more female models. I want to stay away from "female space marines" for the same reason I ould not like to have John, Jack and James the brave sisters of battle.

No, saying "I won't convince anyone but I'm right" is ranting. For the record, I'd like to see gender parity among the factions, the only exception being Space Marines*, so long as the story value of them being mono-gender is retained. If GW doesn't maintain that storyline to a high quality, then yes, bring on the female heads.

*Yes, that means Necrons too. The rank-n-file wouldn't change, as the common citizenry didn't merit individualized chassis, but a female Overlord (Overlady?) would be cool to see.

[eldargal]

Actually I read the post, I just ignored most of it to make a point that people are still trying to attach qualifiers to the idea of including more women in a setting.

I'd really love to hear why you think advocating that humanity in the 40k setting actually look like humanity rather than being all male is bigoted. As to belligerant and *****y, yes, because I'm sick and tired of people acting like adding women to the setting would somehow ****ing dilute what 40k is about. **** that idea and **** anyone who believes it.

[DWest]

I'd really love to hear why you think advocating that humanity in the 40k setting actually look like humanity rather than being all male is bigoted.

I rather thought saying "Hey, because we chose to keep the Astartes an all-boys club, they freaked out and damned the galaxy to a slow, agonizing demise" was a pretty good argument in favor of feminism.