Male and female representation in GW models

[Overread]

Personally my view is that women do not need to be represented as miniatures in a wargame.

Nor do men

Nor do genderless Tyranids 

 

What needs to be represented is the world setting for the game, no matter what that setting might be. If we were talking about a Napoleonic era wargame then women on the battlefield wouldn't be an issue for most armies, they simply would not be there on the battlefield. You might get a hero or special character or have representation for things like a resistance force. We can directly look at the "lore" of history and see what was there and that we don't need to "change" it. 

 

Age of Sigmar is no different save that the lore for it is malleable and adaptable, within reason. For example we have species that don't reproduce sexually (we've tree spirits, lizardmen who spawn in pools and I forget how Orruks and goblins do it save that Orruks, when taken as orks in the 40K setting are fungus spawned from spores).

Within the lore we also have armies that clearly have gender bias. Skaven are all male; Daughters of Khaine are nearly all female; Dwarves are all male etc... Personally I've no problem with fantasy societies that have their womenfolk not fight or who have their menfolk not fight to fit into the story and lore. If GW added an Amazonian inspired army then we'd all expect warrior women and no warrior men in the force (or limited representation). 

 

 

GW has the luxury of choice in how they represent their various races and factions and I think that the key there is that as a whole model range there should be representation; but when it gets down to individual armies there should be variety. We don't want all armies cut from the same cloth. Already I'd argue that GW is doing really rather well - Chaos Warbands for Warcry and in the lore, are getting females appear; we are seeing armies like Daughters of Khaine and yet right alongside we've stormcast women. Heck GW just re-released Sisters of Battle who are heavy set women in chunky armour with short cropped hair - a million miles from the lithe and long haired Witch Aelves. 

I'd argue that we have variety already and that it works within the lore. I'd rather honestly not see it go the full "marvel/DC" route where every single faction ends up with a carbon copy female alter-ego just for representation. I'd also post the bold view that female gamers do not need every army to have women to feel like they are welcome within teh hobby. Heck go to 40K and many women I know of play Tyrainds who don't even have gender (but where the vast majority might be implied to be male save for one or two - one of which is the Tervigon which is basically a mobile birthing machine). I think that women joining the hobby has less to do with gender representation on the models and more to do with the social aspects of the hobby and groups as well as marketing and outreach toward them as a specific market. 

 

 

Of course for AoS a lot of the factions have legacy models from the Old World which broadly had very medieval traditional views on women fighting. They did fight - we had Ulkirka and Kat from the Gotrek and Felix stories and many others dotted around- but they were heroes rather than rank and file for the most part. I think that as GW updates various forces with new sculpts we might well see more women join the front lines in armies where it makes sense. For the wilder barbarian peoples of the Slaves to Darkness we are already seeing women appear here and there in the warbands. It wouldn't shock me if we see more and might even see an Amazonian warband appear (or similar theme). Meanwhile many Dwarven societies are very strict and regimented and I'd be surprised to see women appear on the battlefield outside of specific heroes in stories and perhaps one or two in model form. 

 

[Beastmaster]

I always thought of Space Marines and Sisters as some kind of medieval warrior-monk/warrior-nun orders. Would completely break that background if they weren’t strictly segregated into men and women orders.

[flemingmma]

15 minutes ago, xking said:

There is nothing wrong with sexuality and I'm pretty sure that there are humans in the Mortal realms that worship Sigmar is a God of sex, virility and male fertility. Typical ancient sex cult stuff.

What my favorite things stormcast have over Space Marines, is that they still have sexual desires and are capable of having sex. 

I failed to adequately portray sarcasm here methinks

[passtheKhorneplease]

I am not arguing for female space marines which I don't see as problem now that there are awesome sisters models as an option for women who would like to play as awesome space warriors.  I just think that as a hobby and as a society we should be concerned with making every human being feel welcome and valued. 

[Overread]

4 minutes ago, xking said:

You know I don't get why  sylvaneth can't sexually reproduce, we know plants do sexually reproduce in real life. 

And the realm of life( along with the realm of fire and the Beast) are the Realms I consider mostly associated with sexuality.

I sort of put them in more as a "I've no freaking idea what they do" line. They clearly have male and female aspects to them going on, but I've no idea what (if the lore even does) gets established for them raising new borns and such. From what I can tell many of their ancients are reborn; whilst others are born from seed. 

[Overread]

1 minute ago, passtheKhorneplease said:

I am not arguing for female space marines which I don't see as problem now that there are awesome sisters models as an option for women who would like to play as awesome space warriors.  I just think that as a hobby and as a society we should be concerned with making every human being feel welcome and valued. 

 

This is where I think there is one big fallacy in the argument and a huge risk. I think there's a false impression that the reason more women don't play wargames is because there aren't women models. Whenever I've spoken to women that issue rarely if never gets mentioned by them. Instead I more often hear that they didn't feel welcome in a very male environment where quite a few were not socially welcoming to them and might even have been off-putting. 

I think that marketing also has a lot to do with it as well as social upbringing. Much like how parents would give boys an Action Man and girls a Barbie doll. The gender of the toy didn't matter (Barbie had loads of Ken dolls); it was the marketing and targeted focus and impression that you'd buy one for one gender and one for the other. 

Wargames kind of fit into that; even if GW's own marketing wasn't gender specific, there was the association to other "typical boy toys" aspect going on. That social aspect is changing and by itself, without adding female warriors, I think will have the biggest impact on women joining into the hobby - alongside local groups and clubs becoming more welcoming to them and outreaching more toward women in their own attempts to recruit new members. 

[Beastmaster]

2 minutes ago, passtheKhorneplease said:

I am not arguing for female space marines which I don't see as problem now that there are awesome sisters models as an option for women who would like to play as awesome space warriors.  I just think that as a hobby and as a society we should be concerned with making every human being feel welcome and valued. 

I think we can 99% all agree on that goal, but are female monsters in a fantasy army really helpful/necessary/important for that? Not so sure.

[Aeryenn]

18 minutes ago, passtheKhorneplease said:

Yes that is because if Black Panther is replaced than number of comic books starting a solo black superhero would be down to like 2 (Luke Cage and ah ummm,)

If you steal from a poor it's wrong because he will have nothing left but it's ok to steal from a rich because he will still have enough.

That's how I see your sentence.

[Overread]

MOD NOTICE
Lets keep this thread sticking to WARGAMES and leave the Marvel/DC comics angle to one side. It, whilst related to it, is a separate debate and one one that I think is worth repeating here and muddling up with wargames. Lets keep this thread WARGAME focused from now on. 

 

ALSO a note to remain respectful to each other - this can be an emotionally charged discussion; but lets be mature about it and not resort to insults/accusations. This is an open and casual debate on the matter, not a means to start slinging mud at each other. 

[dekay]

7 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

I think we can 99% all agree on that goal, but are female monsters in a fantasy army really helpful/necessary/important for that? Not so sure.

They might not be, but there are so many cool female monsters running around various folklores that it would be a shame for them to go to waste anyway ; )

Edit:

8 minutes ago, Aryann said:

If you steal from a poor it's wrong because he will have nothing left but it's ok to steal from a rich because he will still have enough.

That's how I see your sentence.

 

No one is stealing anything, though. But if we have 9 versions of thing A, and 1 version of thing B, fans of thing B are obviously worse off if 1 thing B gets replaced with thing A that it would be the other way round.

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by dekay

[Overread]

4 minutes ago, dekay said:

They might not be, but there are so many cool female monsters running around various folklores that it would be a shame for them to go to waste anyway ; )

Agreed, it would actually be a really neat angle for Destruction if GW were to raid a load of folk-lore and such and create a Destruction force that was more "the will of the old fae/nature". The Everqueen might seem to fit that role, but she's more aligned to the concept of building cities and structures and such from Order than she is purely about the wildforests. Probably because of her history in that she was - in the far past - and elf rather than a full forest spirit creature. 

A folk/wildbeasts army that isn't part of Chaos like the Untamed Beasts are; but which is also not part of Sigmar's view toward a more ordered and structured world - a true army of the fae wilds.

 

1 minute ago, xking said:

When did you become a mod?

A shortwhile back (a month or so ish?) 

[JPjr]

32 minutes ago, Overread said:

Heck go to 40K and many women I know of play Tyrainds who don't even have gender

it's almost like in the absence of female representation they've picked the most genderless option available.

Genestealers are actually a whole annoying thing if you really think about it.

"Ok isn't Alien awesome, lets introduce a faction that steals, even more than we usually do,  wholesale from that concept."

"Great idea, how about we change one thing... You know how the films are considered, by some, to be important feminist texts within the sci-fi canon and the Xenomorphs are generally coded as female with Queens and lots of allegories to icky girl parts and how giving birth and the concept of mothers is a thread that runs through it all."

"Yes, I too did Media Studies A-Level at college, I am aware of this."

"Ok, cool, so lets make the leader of a Genestealer coven be a Patriarch instead."

"Love it!"

Edited November 21, 2019 by JPjr

[Aeryenn]

9 minutes ago, dekay said:

No one is stealing anything, though. But if we have 9 versions of thing A, and 1 version of thing B, fans of thing B are obviously worse off if 1 thing B gets replaced with thing A that it would be the other way round.

 

How about this: replacing (stealing) is wrong no matter who steals and no matter who is being robbed? 

[dekay]

4 minutes ago, Aryann said:

How about this: replacing (stealing) is wrong no matter who steals and no matter who is being robbed? 

there is no such thing as 'replacing ( stealing)'. If I own those things, I am allowed to change them as I see fit. It's best if my customers like the change, but again, no one is being robbed of anything.

[Overread]

Just now, xking said:

I disagree, The Everqueen is about nature and life. As nature is orderly, just not in the same way  civilization is.  And life-forms are extremely complex orderly machines. 

Honestly neither of is is right and neither of us is wrong. We are just interpreting it based on different viewpoints. I'm taking the angle that order views structure from a very "human" viewpoint; whilst you're arguing that nature isn't random, just very ordered in a super complex way (which I fully agree with). My argument was more to just justify my angle of putting a Fae army into the Destruction Grand Alliance as a means to introduce a new "fae" themed army. 

However you can equally argue points for putting such a concept into Chaos, Order and heck with some creativity even into Death. The lore of the Realms is very flexible in that regard so it comes down to what vision GW wants to create and can then fit into the segments rather than outright facts that are fixed.

 

 

 

Indeed whilst GW will NEVER fully represent everytihng within every faction; the lore of the realms is flexible enough that you can convert your own army along any line you want. Heck you could do the very same for Old World. Heck Iv'e seen (in photos) My Little Pony armies converted up (there are some very well done Warmachine ones out there). 

[JPjr]

my one and only comment on Marvel as it pertains to this discussion...

CAPTAIN AMERICA
- Steve Rogers replaced by 'The Spirit of 76'? Sure, makes narrative sense
- Steve Rogers replaced by The Patriot? Again all good.
- Steve Rogers replaced by William Burnside? A natural development of where we are in the timeline
- Steve Rogers replaced by succession of other characters? Sure thing but these white dudes sure do seem to get killed a lot, thought about trying something else?
- Steve Rogers replaced by US Agent? No, Ok let's try again with this one could be interesting
- Steve Rogers replaced by Bucky Barnes? Why of course, this makes sense they're old friends and partners
- Steve Rogers replaced by Dave Rickford? I wonder how this will turn out? Ah...
- Steve Rogers replaced by Sam Wilson, his longest running partner and co-star of titles running back to the 70s? WHITE GENOCIDE!

Now if you were to list, lets say, the top 100 defining features of Captain America, what he stands for, what he believes, what drives him? At what number would you say being white features? 

Captain America is a title, is a symbol, a representation of an ideal. The 'mantle' of Captain America being held by a black man doesn't change that, what it does do though is provide an incredibly interesting set of potential narrative conflicts to be explored. 

What does it mean to be the 'symbol of America' when you're black and the country you represent has, from its birth to today, massive racial problems. How does it feel to wear the red, white and blue the same colours that have oppressed you?

After all time and time again the writers of Captain America have used him to make explicit political comments on the state of the US and what it means for him to wear those colours and be who he is, representing a country that that has never lived up to the dream that he represents.

If you believe that comics are (or can be) for grown ups and should explore more interesting ideas than 'might is right' and 22 pages a month of people being punched then you should welcome things like this.

ESPECIALLY when anyone who has read more than 3 comics knows that these things snap back into their original shape after a series or 2 anyway.

And this is not even getting into the times Thor was replaced by a frog or a space horse or whatever.
 

Edited November 21, 2019 by JPjr

[Veles]

3 hours ago, JPjr said:

I can hear a honking in the distance so before the clown car pulls up and dumps all its occupants into this thread...

[dekay]

12 minutes ago, Overread said:

My argument was more to just justify my angle of putting a Fae army into the Destruction Grand Alliance as a means to introduce a new "fae" themed army. 

And if destruction-nature army ever showed up, some of us would start to play it immediately ; )

[Aeryenn]

20 minutes ago, dekay said:

there is no such thing as 'replacing ( stealing)'. If I own those things, I am allowed to change them as I see fit. It's best if my customers like the change, but again, no one is being robbed of anything.

How about not take it literally? It's a metaphor. Trying to explain replacing is wrong no matter who is being replaced. Last mention, promise - I'd rather they killed a white male superhero and started a BRAND NEW ONE minority hero than to replace him with 90% same powers but different skin color/sex. That's lazy, unfair and bad taste. Be original. Everything they can come up with is black Spider-man, Spider-Women and Noir Spider-man? Groundschool kid would have performed better if asked to create a new hero... 

Edit:

There is one Captain America - Steve Rogers. Doesn't matter who was put in his shoes, white or black. You're done with ideas how to continue his story? Kill him and create sth new you lazy writers. 

Thing is lately there is a huge and visible shift to replacing whites whith blacks or women/minorities. Captain America, Hulk (Amadeus Cho), Spider-Man, Iron Man (Riri Williams), Thor (Jane Foster), etc...

Edited November 21, 2019 by Aryann

[Satyrical Sophist]

25 minutes ago, Aryann said:

How about this: replacing (stealing) is wrong no matter who steals and no matter who is being robbed? 

To the privileged, equality can feel like a loss.

[Beastmaster]

32 minutes ago, JPjr said:

it's almost like in the absence of female representation they've picked the most genderless option available.

Genestealers are actually a whole annoying thing if you really think about it.

"Ok isn't Alien awesome, lets introduce a faction that steals, even more than we usually do,  wholesale from that concept."

"Great idea, how about we change one thing... You know how the films are considered, by some, to be important feminist texts within the sci-fi canon and the Xenomorphs are generally coded as female with Queens and lots of allegories to icky girl parts and how giving birth and the concept of mothers is a thread that runs through it all."

"Yes, I too did Media Studies A-Level at college, I am aware of this."

"Ok, cool, so lets make the leader of a Genestealer coven be a Patriarch instead."

"Love it!"

This actually got me thinking. Why did that obvious and weird change from queen to patriarch never strike me as odd?

Maybe I’m not as aware of gender issues as I thought. 🤔

Edited November 21, 2019 by Beastmaster

[Thiagoma]

3 hours ago, EccentricCircle said:

I know that raging heroes is a thing, and while their sculpts are amazingly dynamic, and you have to admire their artistry, I find the overly skimpy attire of their figures off putting. I don't want to say that there is anything inherently wrong with that, but it certainly isn't for me.

Some of their recent lines are not Skimpy like their first waves. There is a paladin faction and one for sisters that are pretty cool. 

[Veles]

As I close the door of the car...

Please stop with this SJW topics. All this “gender natural”, “female representation”, president insulting ******... this is a war gaming forum for the product that has been around for more than 25 years. If the setting doesn’t fit your vision of universe go find a new one where you will be happy. Stop trying to change wargaming (might be a surprise for some but it is predominantly  male hobby based on the reenacting of real battles where males were smashing each other into bloody pulp). Leave the hobby the way it is. It is perfectly good. 

 

[Icegoat]

It's very clear GW will never bother to update the human side of cities of sigmar. Thusly the chance of us ever getting good human female representatives that fight for order and aren't storm marines is basically zero. And that's what's most disappointing. We guys get lots of human male models and we get big monsters and big trolls or big trees but making an actual order female human seems to be something GW have no interest in doing. Same in 40k with the imperial guard. 

I've read a lot of books that have had female imperial guardsman and freeguild women in them

I don't actually think GW will ever update the old empire with mixed units. 

[Satyrical Sophist]

3 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

This actually got me thinking. Why did that obvious and weird change from queen to patriarch never strike me as odd?

Maybe I’m not as aware of gender issues as I thought. 🤔

There are a couple of reasons I could see being true, with differing amounts of credit to GW.

The please don't sue us reason. They already had a lot of similarities to Alien. Just another change to make it less legally actionable. It's pretty lazy, but a fair amount of GW stuff follows the "throw it all at the wall and see what sticks".

The more thought out reason. Genestealers share a lot with alien, but one thing they have that is very different is the cult part. There is a very creepy Manson or Jones town vibe to GSC. The idea of people being subverted to a cause. They may have decided that it worked better as a creepy faux paternal figure than as a mother style one. Particularly with the deep veins of subverted religion, the disapproving father.