discussion Female model representation in Age of Sigmar

[Nos]

22 minutes ago, Orsino said:

 

So it's a fact...that everything is subjective. Think about that and tell me if you can see the problem.

 

Tbh I'm not really interested in a dead-end epistemological discussion about subjectivity with someone who thinks consistency and coherence are just for high-schoolers. So I'll confine myself to saying the fact that you've so vociferously challenged the things I've said indicates you do believe that statements can be more or less true/valid, and your resort to "everything is subjective, I don't have to make sense" when the things you say are questioned is just self-serving. It also doesn't really leave any room for meaningful discussion so I think I'm done.

Thanks!

They were quoting a post of yours. They said that those things were subjective. Not "everything".

Consistency and coherence tend to attest to themselves. They do not tend to be met with reiteration, contradiction, absence of support and the need for clarification or the rules of language.

The existence of subjectivity does not preclude the existence of objectivity. That is an incredibly remedial understanding of the concept. Subjectivity is a means of explaining the importance of perception to collective human understanding and interaction and how our means of interacting with things is as much if not more fuelled by us as it is the thing itself. It does not suggest that nothing exists independently of it or that the basis for reality is opinion, which Is what you seem to be groping at.

If you're out for whatever reason that's fine, I just didnt want it to go unchallenged that the reason for your doing so lies in you being above the conversation or because people are being disengenous in their responses to you. You're not and they arent. 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Nos

[Gaz Taylor]

+++ Mod Hat On +++
 

Just a nudge but the topic is getting quite nit picky and argumentative. 
 

Just remember to be polite and constructive. If what you want to say isn’t any of these, don’t reply to the topic. 😉

[EccentricCircle]

3 hours ago, Orsino said:

 I enjoy my nearly all female CoS army (kitbashed Nomad Princess below), more models are always nice, I don't think there's any inherent limit on how many female minis you can have. 

She's great! What are the components? You've made a great conversion there, and if the rest of the army is of a similar standard i'd love to see more of them and hear your approach.

[Aelfric]

I would like to start by saying that a greater representation of women (and ethnicities by the way) in the model range would be a good thing.  My two main forces have always been Aelves and Greenskins, and I could reasonably say that my elves are split fairly evenly between male and female sculpts and that is part of their attraction for me (Greenskins are there because sometimes you just want to have fun and smash things up).

It is clear that GW has been introducing more female sculpts into non-Aelven factions in recent years, which is great.  While following this thread, I have been wondering how GW can take it to the next level.  Creating female heroes is not so much a problem as it is a single model and sold as such.  But it doesn't seem so easy when talking about units.  This is not a cheap hobby (see LRL, my new army), a box of models represents a unit and an army will be made up of many boxes.  I would argue that having two versions of the same unit, one female; one male, for every faction is not a practical, or financially viable, solution, so how exactly, on a practical level, do GW increase the representation of women into the model range?  Add to that that every existing unit they update to fulfil equality would require every model to be updated, not just the female ones.  To introduce parity into every faction by having a box of models be half female half male would, counter-intuitively, be restrictive, in that anyone wanting a different split for whatever reason would be forced to buy more than one box for each unit in their army.  If they pick certain factions to make 50/50, which factions do they pick and how many.  If they go by race and only pick humans and Duardin, for example, that would still lead to a lot of factions requiring new models; CoS, KO, Fyreslayers, SCE,  S2D, all Chaos mortal units (and probably more I can't think of).  Creating alternative female heads is possible within some factions  (probably not Khorne).  However they do it , it will need to be in a way that that does not make people feel they are having to pay for the privilege.

Basically, what I'm saying is that if we want greater representation of women in the model range, then we need to not just tell GW that (I'm sure they already know), but also give them some feedback on how that representation might be achieved in a way or ways that would be acceptable within the community and practically doable within the constraints of a plastic-figure-making company.

 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Aelfric

[EccentricCircle]

I feel like the numbers largely back up what we all kind of know. And give some indications of what the key places where improvement could be made are.

Aelves are in a fairly good place, as they kind of always have been. We have a lot of mixed units in Idoneth and Idoneth, and good representation of male and female heroes. Daughters are clearly a mostly female army (although whether they are a good option for increasing female representation kind of depends about how you feel about chainmail bikinis). Sylvaneth are mostly female, but with a few male units, and a less divisive aesthetic (despite actually having fewer clothes than the daughters.) The old aelven armies in cities have less of a mix, but its not terrible.

The rest of Order is less balanced. Stormcast are rapidly improving, but still have a lot of older, male dominated units, and most of the human and dwarven factions are pretty much all male. I think there is definitely a lot of artistic space for women in the human armies, and that they can and should be developed. For cities I'd appreciate mixed units, where you have a similar balance to elves.

I'd like to see more female dwarves, but think that from an aesthetic view point it makes more sense to keep the units themselves segregated. So lets have some dwarven shieldmaidens, or female fyreslayers as their own things, but maybe not mix them in with the existing units which have always had a very iconically bearded aesthetic. You can absolutely introduce a lot of female sculpts in this way while still keeping the armies themes of tradition and patriarchy. Doing that would be no different to how the Daughters are female led, but have the odd male unit. (Although I actually converted my Doomfire Warlocks to be girls, to keep up the theme.)

Chaos mortals I think should have a more even gender split in the units, because basically anyone can fall to chaos and go on a mad rampage. The way the warcry bands have turned out has been pretty good in that respect. I'd like marauders and warriors to be similar, so you really get the feel of a barbarian tribe on the march. I think the same goes for beasts. There is no reason why a tribe of nomadic raiders should leave their ladyfolk back at camp, when their entire culture is as bestial and violent as the beast"men".

Death I feel is in a good place. If the inevitable vampires can have a solid Lahmian contingent and introduce a similar number of female sculpts to nighthaunt then I think it would really add a lot to the grand alliance, but on the whole a skeleton is a skeleton unless you measure the hips, and bonereapers aren't even anatomically correct anymore. Gender makes sense for the ghosts and vampires, and maybe the zombies if they ever give us a new kit for them. But on the whole I feel like things are ok as they stand.

That then brings us to the non humanoid races. I think Seraphon, Skaven etc are largely ok as they are, since its not as though you can really tell whether they are male or female, if such concepts even apply. I'd not object to female models for either faction, but I feel like there is less of a pressing need.

Introducing more trolls, ogres and giants could be cool. I'd love to see what they come up with, and I think there is a lot of potential for female goblins if they ever expand Gloomspite.

I'm not sure about the Orky factions. I think they are quite established as a parody of ultra macho masculinity at this point, and that they should probably stick that way.

I'll be happy with whatever they do though. I don't think there are or should be any sacred cows.

 

[Nos]

1 hour ago, EccentricCircle said:

I feel like the numbers largely back up what we all kind of know. And give some indications of what the key places where improvement could be made are.

Aelves are in a fairly good place, as they kind of always have been. We have a lot of mixed units in Idoneth and Idoneth, and good representation of male and female heroes. Daughters are clearly a mostly female army (although whether they are a good option for increasing female representation kind of depends about how you feel about chainmail bikinis). Sylvaneth are mostly female, but with a few male units, and a less divisive aesthetic (despite actually having fewer clothes than the daughters.) The old aelven armies in cities have less of a mix, but its not terrible.

The rest of Order is less balanced. Stormcast are rapidly improving, but still have a lot of older, male dominated units, and most of the human and dwarven factions are pretty much all male. I think there is definitely a lot of artistic space for women in the human armies, and that they can and should be developed. For cities I'd appreciate mixed units, where you have a similar balance to elves.

I'd like to see more female dwarves, but think that from an aesthetic view point it makes more sense to keep the units themselves segregated. So lets have some dwarven shieldmaidens, or female fyreslayers as their own things, but maybe not mix them in with the existing units which have always had a very iconically bearded aesthetic. You can absolutely introduce a lot of female sculpts in this way while still keeping the armies themes of tradition and patriarchy. Doing that would be no different to how the Daughters are female led, but have the odd male unit. (Although I actually converted my Doomfire Warlocks to be girls, to keep up the theme.)

Chaos mortals I think should have a more even gender split in the units, because basically anyone can fall to chaos and go on a mad rampage. The way the warcry bands have turned out has been pretty good in that respect. I'd like marauders and warriors to be similar, so you really get the feel of a barbarian tribe on the march. I think the same goes for beasts. There is no reason why a tribe of nomadic raiders should leave their ladyfolk back at camp, when their entire culture is as bestial and violent as the beast"men".

Death I feel is in a good place. If the inevitable vampires can have a solid Lahmian contingent and introduce a similar number of female sculpts to nighthaunt then I think it would really add a lot to the grand alliance, but on the whole a skeleton is a skeleton unless you measure the hips, and bonereapers aren't even anatomically correct anymore. Gender makes sense for the ghosts and vampires, and maybe the zombies if they ever give us a new kit for them. But on the whole I feel like things are ok as they stand.

That then brings us to the non humanoid races. I think Seraphon, Skaven etc are largely ok as they are, since its not as though you can really tell whether they are male or female, if such concepts even apply. I'd not object to female models for either faction, but I feel like there is less of a pressing need.

Introducing more trolls, ogres and giants could be cool. I'd love to see what they come up with, and I think there is a lot of potential for female goblins if they ever expand Gloomspite.

I'm not sure about the Orky factions. I think they are quite established as a parody of ultra macho masculinity at this point, and that they should probably stick that way.

I'll be happy with whatever they do though. I don't think there are or should be any sacred cows.

 

The fundamental issue I think is not what does or dosent need working on, I think in most instances it should (and will) continue to be an organic but overt evolutionary process.

The issue rather is that some members of the community panic and sqwark and protest about it for no justifiable or discernible reason, making something which should actually be very simple,fun and not at all a big deal into this tortuous battleground subject.

[zilberfrid]

I think Lumineth have some sacred cows...

I do agree that there is not a single aesthetic for female representation.

On one hand, I think the Frostgrave Soldiers 2 and Wizards 2 are high up for the best miniature sets on the market. They give more diversity and options than GW sets, and the women are clad in a way I'd believe for the Frozen City. 

On the other hand, this is my current project:

 

[Mattrulesok]

48 minutes ago, Nos said:

The issue rather is that some members of the community panic and sqwark and protest about it for no justifiable or discernible reason, making something which should actually be very simple,fun and not at all a big deal into this tortuous battleground subject.

I'm always reminded of THIS STUDY when these battles occur. 

[Noserenda]

I mean it feels like an obvious move to add a mix of genders to every unit sprue going forward, if people are obsessed with going one way or the other they can just swap them out with someone else. Equally just toss a coin when developing a hero model to see where they end up.

Things like only segregated units or only special female heroes are nearly as cringe as them being weirdly absent tbh with the odd exception.

[Zeblasky]

Huh, I kinda missed this topic, but I think I still have something to say here.

I pretty much agree with most posts here about "the more options, the better". If you could make your unit mostly/all male, mostly/all female or mixed, that would be the best case scenario for most factions. In that regard, I'm sad that Glade Guard kit is gone, as it was pretty great for gender options - there was a good surplus of both gender torsoes and heads(?), so you could make either gender a majority.

Some races have to be completely excluded from this process though (like Seraphon or Orcs), but I do belive that some have potential for female models or even gender dynamics when none existed before.

Lets take Skaven for example. While almost all of female Skaven are kept constantly dragged and bloated as Broodmothers (possibly including even those that relegared as personal concubines to the most influential Skaven as well), I remember reading an excerpt from some WFB novel, where one influential Skaven lord trained 2 of his females concubines into strong and very loyal personal bodyguards. Which was perceived as very unnatural by Skaven around them (both the fact that they were female warriors and that they were so loyal!) and unnerved them greatly.

So, why not make this practice more mainstream? Some Skaven warlords start creating small and very elite female bodyguard units (which give good defensive bonuses to Skaven non Daemon heroes ingame), that are very loyal (10 leadership), and unnerve other non hero Skaven (or may be even all non female Skaven) greatly (-1 Leadership bubble on Skaven units, friend and foe, may be does even stack). It could also be a hero unit with some interesting mechanics, even named ones. They too could be bodyguards or buffers/manipulators or even a named female Warlock Engineer, who attained her position through her exeptional talent for inventions. The possibilites for both inspirational stories as well as Grimdark here are pretty vast.

And here we go, a pretty loreful female representation in a Ratmen faction, which translates into great and fun units on the table.

 

[LuminethMage]

16 hours ago, Orsino said:

Again, you haven't attempted to answer the question there, what is your yardstick for deciding that there aren't enough female models if not reality?

One good one is that female players (and also some men) say that they want more of them, right? That’s the whole point of the thread after all. Anecdotal evidence that more woman would enjoy the game if there are more varied female models. There is a demand there, which could be fulfilled and could bring in more female players. The OP gave the example of RPGs where this seemed to have worked. 

If those assumptions are correct, it seems a better yardstick, especially for a company that wants to sell things to people, than “history”, in a game that has almost nothing to do with history or even our universal laws. 

 

[EccentricCircle]

8 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

I think Lumineth have some sacred cows...

I do agree that there is not a single aesthetic for female representation.

On one hand, I think the Frostgrave Soldiers 2 and Wizards 2 are high up for the best miniature sets on the market. They give more diversity and options than GW sets, and the women are clad in a way I'd believe for the Frozen City. 

On the other hand, this is my current project:

 

Very cool, what are they\ what are they made from?

[zilberfrid]

44 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:

Very cool, what are they\ what are they made from?

They are the Escher gang, both boxes (which also has the kitties) with a single Sister of Battle mixed in as heavy armour. Bases are mostly standard, with a few of them split with green goop on them (and a few sewer tentacles).

I have no idea how the rules work. I just wanted to build and paint something aggressively '80's.

[Sartxac]

Armies where i don't want see any female soldier:

-The humans of cities of sigmar

-Seraphon

-All orcs

-Slaves to darkness (except any general with the body of the bif womans of strongmant competitions) + mortals of the other armies (khorne, tzeench, nurgle)

-Barbarian tribes (except some generals)

-Ogors (except one or two model)

-Skavens (may be big rats as the brood horror)

The argument: for example, cities of sigmar for me are realistic humans of the S.XVII. And in the ancient times with a enourmous moratility of childrens, phisics battles and work, the gender equality sounds like a joke. For me view a lot of womans in this armies as ridicolous as see the teenager Robin fighting adult criminals.

Armies where i want see a little number of female models:

-Karhadron Overlords (female engineers piloting war constructions),

-Daemons of khorne

-Stormcast Eternals for me now have enough female models. I think that don't need more.

-Fireslayers

Armies when i want see more womans:

-Flesh eater courts (generals and courtiers)

-Zombies of LN

-Nightaunt

-Archers +mags in all aelves armies

-Sylvaneth

-More vampires in individual units as specialist rogues

Armien when i only want a majority of womans (or all womans):

-Daughters of kaine

-Wood Aelves

-Slaanesh 

-New armies like Amazonas

 

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by Sartxac

[Aeryenn]

I just want to vote NO. AoS is perfect right now. Throughout human history women played only marginal role in warfare. It's only natural to our biology. It's cool to see armies like DoK from time to time, yet demanding parities for every group that is dissatisfied at a given moment is insanity. It's artificial, unnatural.  Go, create your own wargame and stop demanding people to obey your demands. Just accept their vision or leave.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Overread
Political Comments removed.

[zilberfrid]

1 minute ago, Sartxac said:

Armies where i don't want see any female soldier:

-The humans of cities of sigmar

-Seraphon

-All orcs

-Slaves to darkness (except any general with the body of the bif womans of strongmant competitions) + mortals of the other armies (khorne, tzeench, nurgle)

-Barbarian tribes (except some generals)

-Ogors (except one or two model)

-Skavens (may be big rats as the brood horror)

The argument: for example, cities of sigmar for me are realistic humans of the S.XVI. And in the ancient times with a enourmour moratility of the childrens, phisics battles and work, the gender equality souns like a joke. For me view a lot of womans in this armies as ridicolous as see the teenager Robin fighting adult criminals.

Armies where i want see a little number of female models:

-Karhadron Overlords (female engineers piloting war constructions),

-Daemons of khorne

-Stormcast Eternals for me now have enough female models. I think that don't need more.

-Fireslayers

Armies when i want see more womans:

-Flesh eater courts

-Zombies of LN

-Nightaunt

-Archers +mags in all aelves armies

-Sylvaneth

-More vampires in individual units as specialist rogues

Armien when i only want a majority of womans (or all womans):

-Daughters of kaine

-Wood Aelves

-Slaanesh 

-New armies like Amazonas

I entirely disagree.

I really want the human factions to feature women. StD already has the Warcry bands, Godsworn Hunt and Darkoath Warqueen. That's a good start, but it can be improved. Similarely, there already is a female Acolyte and Nurgle something.

Order humans I also want to be better. Warhammer isn't as nice a world as the real one, when they are fighting, they are fighting for survival instead of small gain for a lord. It makes no sense keeping half of your people from training.

I also think all your "a little" factions have no reason not to approach half and half.

[Sartxac]

24 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

I entirely disagree.

I really want the human factions to feature women. StD already has the Warcry bands, Godsworn Hunt and Darkoath Warqueen. That's a good start, but it can be improved. Similarely, there already is a female Acolyte and Nurgle something.

Order humans I also want to be better. Warhammer isn't as nice a world as the real one, when they are fighting, they are fighting for survival instead of small gain for a lord. It makes no sense keeping half of your people from training.

I also think all your "a little" factions have no reason not to approach half and half.

In the S.XVII (or whatever else) a lot of countries were in war, and more of the half of poblation not fights directly. You can't send to a war all people, you need make childrens, science, make weapons, move the economy, etc. And the mans are expendable, not the womans. If you loss the 50% poblation of males you don't the same problems that you would have with the loss of the same % of womans, the other 50% could make the same childrens with the womans. The problem is the countrary, loss a % of womans would be a real problem for a society. 

The sexual dismorphism in our specie is a fact. When we see fights between mans and womans in the UFC i won't have any problems with see melee females without unnatural/daemonic powers as wonder woman or womans without the body of the strongwomans as melee batteline. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuGdUGqzCgs

In the real world, never exist a tribu or country that sends womans to war in similar % that mans. 

Furthermore, for example sometimes i play Airsoft and only one girl participate  little times in my group, the other girls don't want participate in this, they say that the hit do damage. And for fire shoot games the differences between genders don't have any importance.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Sartxac

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, Aeryenn said:

I just want to vote NO. AoS is perfect right now. Throughout human history women played only marginal role in warfare. It's only natural to our biology. It's cool to see armies like DoK from time to time, yet demanding parities for every group that is dissatisfied at a given moment is insanity. It's artificial, unnatural.  Go, create your own wargame and stop demanding people to obey your demands. Just accept their vision or leave. 

Counter argument:

YES, because this is not an historic war game in any sense. And like you said, it seems that even the main designers are just building/scuptling more and more female models than before than 4 years ago, so let them continue the same route plis.

Btw, nobody demands anything to GW, because nobody has the power to do that (at least in this forum). It's just a topic to debate with other people. Believe me, it's fun. Try it!

[Sartxac]

57 minutes ago, Aeryenn said:

I just want to vote NO. AoS is perfect right now. Throughout human history women played only marginal role in warfare. It's only natural to our biology. It's cool to see armies like DoK from time to time, yet demanding parities for every group that is dissatisfied at a given moment is insanity. It's artificial, unnatural. There are too many people obsessed with social justice. Want to have twisted parities like current oscar rewards? Go, create your own wargame and stop demanding people to obey your demands. Just accept their vision or leave. It's modern terrorism. Whoever has different opinion than the mainstream leftist one is called fascist. That's the real intolerance.

I'm totally agree with you. 

The same occurs withcaucus appareance and white skin for humans in cities of sigmar. But i thought that stormcast eternals for their golder armors as black mans (like muscular senegaleses) would have a better appareance like space marine salamanders.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Sartxac

[Overread]

The first humans to be presented in the whole of AoS within the first pages of the first book was a small band led by women who were fleeing marauders/bloodreavers across the ruins of the past. The last fighters of their people. 

 

We can make many arguments for why specific armies would or would not have more or less women/men in their ranks. Many might link to  real world analogies based on humans; others might look at other species. Take lions where males do a significantly less amount of hunting, when part of a pride, than females who do a majority. We must remember that whilst humanity acts as a base its not a defining element. Chaos Warriors are so corrupted they are hardly even human any more and we've already seen multiple women in key roles within their society. 

 

27 minutes ago, Sartxac said:

Furthermore, for example sometimes i play Airsoft and only one girl participate  little times in my group, the other girls don't want participate in this, they say that the hit do damage. And for fire shoot games the differences between genders don't have any importance.

Part of this might be cultural (English doesn't sound like your first language) as well as social. Go back 30  odd years and most DnD groups were men. Fast forward today and there are a lot of women into DnD as well as Larping. Heck Larping has gone from being something really ultra niche to being quite a mainstream geeky hobby with many women in key roles and taking part.

Hobby attitudes change, even in wargames we are seeing more and more taking part. We should be cautious of past attitudes suggesting that some hobbies and interests are for specific genders, when it was often the upbringing and social setup that steered people toward certain things and away from others. Just like there's no real reason women can't play and enjoy Airsoft; there's no reason men can't enjoy knitting. It's only social constructs and impressions that set the tone that one might be for men and the other for women. 

 

[Sartxac]

4 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Counter argument:

YES, because this is not an historic war game in any sense. And like you said, it seems that even the main designers are just building/scuptling more and more female models than before than 4 years ago, so let them continue the same route plis.

Btw, nobody demands anything to GW, because nobody has the power to do that (at least in this forum). It's just a topic to debate with other people. Believe me, it's fun. Try it!

This isn't a historical game. But if you have armies of standard humans without unnatural powers, your are submitted to the same rules that our ancients.                                                                       

[Sartxac]

8 minutes ago, Overread said:

 

 

Part of this might be cultural (English doesn't sound like your first language) as well as social. Go back 30  odd years and most DnD groups were men. Fast forward today and there are a lot of women into DnD as well as Larping. Heck Larping has gone from being something really ultra niche to being quite a mainstream geeky hobby with many women in key roles and taking part.

Hobby attitudes change, even in wargames we are seeing more and more taking part. We should be cautious of past attitudes suggesting that some hobbies and interests are for specific genders, when it was often the upbringing and social setup that steered people toward certain things and away from others. Just like there's no real reason women can't play and enjoy Airsoft; there's no reason men can't enjoy knitting. It's only social constructs and impressions that set the tone that one might be for men and the other for women. 

 

I agree only when you say that part of this is cultural. Other little part is biologically. Never you will have gender parity in all the aspects of the society and this isn't a problem.

I'm aware of my bad english, i'm spanish and i write fastly without checking my sentences. Sorry 😅.

For example, in my city in our group three womens play (idoneth, fire slayers and daugthers of kaine). But for other womans that i show this game thinks that have a lot of rules and is boring. In % the males are more competitive and for this is more easy that they like this game (due to the effect of our hormones in our brain).

Edited September 12, 2020 by Sartxac

[Beliman]

1 minute ago, Sartxac said:

This isn't a historical game. But if you have armies of standard humans without unnatural powers, your are submitted to the same rules that our ancients.                                                                       

...or not. Designers are the ones that will say that.

But we don't have to power to answer that, so we just talk about how good could be to have more variety of female models in AoS. Thats the whole point of this post.

[Overread]

1 minute ago, Sartxac said:

I agree only when you say that part of this is cultural. Other little part is biologically. Never you will have gender parity in all the aspects of the society and this isn't a problem.

I'm aware of my bad english, i'm spanish and i write fastly without checking my sentences. Sorry 😅

Aye, but the important thing to realise is that within AoS gender parity isn't as clear cut as the real world. The majority of races aren't human. Dwarves, Elves, Lizards etc... are not human so can't and shouldn't obey gender parity that humanity displays. Heck Skaven already show a vastly greater bias toward males than humans have ever had. 

Meanwhile humans of the setting like Slaves to Darkness are enhanced beyond normal measure by their dark gods; meanwhile gods and powers that be also influence the world. So whilst it can be a factor in the concept and background of an army, we can't fully use modern world biology to define the setting. 

Plus lets consider that in the modern world we are actually seeing more women entering the armed forces. Guns don't require much energy to pull the trigger. It might well be that we could see more women appear in roles like musket shooting; tank command; magical casters etc... Ergo roles where its not all about brute strength and muscle power. 

[Sartxac]

9 minutes ago, Overread said:

Aye, but the important thing to realise is that within AoS gender parity isn't as clear cut as the real world. The majority of races aren't human. Dwarves, Elves, Lizards etc... are not human so can't and shouldn't obey gender parity that humanity displays. Heck Skaven already show a vastly greater bias toward males than humans have ever had. 

Meanwhile humans of the setting like Slaves to Darkness are enhanced beyond normal measure by their dark gods; meanwhile gods and powers that be also influence the world. So whilst it can be a factor in the concept and background of an army, we can't fully use modern world biology to define the setting. 

Plus lets consider that in the modern world we are actually seeing more women entering the armed forces. Guns don't require much energy to pull the trigger. It might well be that we could see more women appear in roles like musket shooting; tank command; magical casters etc... Ergo roles where its not all about brute strength and muscle power. 

Maybe we think similar.

If you read my messages i'm referring only in humans without powers and some races like orks. For this i want vampires priest in legion of blood. 

And i comment three armies where i want all woman soldiers and other armies when i want look more females like zombies, flesh eater courts, nightaunt (maybe a bigger % of spirit womens than mans), etc...

In the actual wars you could see more females in the armed forces (but i remember read that in spain armies they goes to other works that aren't the first line in wars), because the reproduction is more secure and don't have the same importance of the past, with the advances in technology the womans can do the same work of the males. In a army of humans of S.XVII instead they use shoot weapons, is more important have a big fertility rate,  farming, work, etc.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Sartxac