In a recent Conclave meeting the cardinals thought that a more accurate could be taken on the ratio of female v.s. male ratio in the Inquisition, also known as the 'boys club", hundreds of centuries of a patriarchal society that has left women on the fringe of nonexistence. As acting leader of the Cathedral of Illumination it is decreed to my scribe skull servitor Rosencrantz who transcribed my two hour sermon to the masses of Scintilla as pilgramage time has begun we would like to undersand this before proceeding with solving any tenents of our transmission from Holy Terra.

"That steps must be taken to allow both sexes of the species ward of enemies to the Imperium. We must be conservetive with or liberties, every tool is a weapon if you hold it correctly"

"By acting order of the Living God Emperor Himself, we have astropahic support for our cause directly from the High Lords of Terra to find out how many women are in this community that are hell bent on purging heretics"

As Always,

Yr.Obd.Srvnt.

S.C.I.

"What is the general sentiment on the subject of females serving in battle for the Imperium, many of

our lessons in history were of the Living Saints of the gentler gender."

Not sure how you're meaning this but the group I run has 3 Female players and half the player characters are Female. They all play just as well as the girls, in fact they usually role play better!

Sorry that should be "play as well as the boys" doh!

i'm with Darkshroud on this...

i have no problem whatsoever with women being in this fight for the Imperium. and i don't really think neither do the folks at GW, BL or FFG. i DO think that we have a tendency to see more male based personalities because this game is made by mostly men.

i have 2 women that play in my campaign and man, are they really good. they add something to the game in terms of role playing other than their good looks. i would like to see more women getting into this but its a tough sell for many of them. my old lady thinks the whole thing all rather silly.

at a time when we need as much manpower as possible...humans. all humans. are the best resource we have at our disposal.

I've no female players in any of the games I run, but they have encountered several, 1 was a complete ***** frankly, another was a hard nosed, stern and silent person with a shotgun. The other is my characters wife, an Administratium clerk with a fear of flying. I try not to stick with only 2 stereotypes, the weakling who needs the big men with guns to do anything, or the tough, Ripley-esque character. I look between the 2

I have to say that the reason why I like RPG's like Dark Heresy is because it treats so many larger than life topics. Meaning that mundane and boring crap like gender roles and such (a debate of which I personally get my fair share of already in the real world) gets a lot less focus. It doesnt really matter if you're a man or a woman in the Inquisition, what matters is that you are a human, loyal to the Emperor and that you HATE everything in the universe that isn't good and human and loyal to the Emperor.

There are games with a lot better settings that really emphasize focus on male/female interactions (like Noir for example, a game which is only avaliable to us swedes for now). In Dark Heresy you fight for the very soul of mankind, making any sort of focus on such mundane subjects (other than for pure novelty's sake) pretty redundant.

The Senior Cardinal was only remarking that on Scintilla and his experience the Dark Heresy does not deal with many women. Other game designers have tapped into the growing segment of women role-players and feels that more Sisters of IC or PC or in General WOMEN could be paid more attention when marketing games. I myself don't like a mix of some sort of the sexes in a game, it just makes things more realistic. I praise FFG for all the work they do in publishing fantastic material, although I would guess the percentage of females on this forum is not on par with some more progressive games. This is only an opinion of Ignato. This was not intended to be curt, flippant, or a novelty. I left the IC question posed as such to be vague and as I presumed it would be taken as some sort of slant, this is topic of interest. I learn nothing while typing or speaking, you are blessed if you can do both at once. I was seriously trying to address the sad state of affairs I feel women play in Dark Heresy. Blah the Emperor is displeased with his Cardinal and shall flail himself for such a shoddy post.

Most of the roleplayers I know are female. I only know of one who plays DH, and she's in my group. While DH is a pretty good roleplaying setting for either gender, wargaming is pretty male-centric.

One female character played by one in my campaign with 4 other blokes (plus me - another bloke).

She has infact commented that Dark Heresy doesnt deal with gender issues very well and that women are explored/described very poorly in the setting. (I hasten to add she still enjoys the game).

I think this is because:

1. Its a game historically thats been designed by men for men

2. The space marines are categorically male

3. Gender is not a detail that has been necessarily explored in any depth in the setting.

4. The Emperor and a good portion of the High Lords of Terra are men.

I consistently try to have female npcs/protagonists in the game irrespective of what job/role they fulfill.

I try to present the view that the imperium is a "usually" sexless environment and that so long as your faithful to the emperor and can pick up a gun then your part of society.

My personal view is that it "should" be a sexless environment but men and women are drawn to various roles because of biological bias and hormones.

I would be intrigued on peoples thoughts on the 40k world and our own, that if we lived in a totally sexless society whether there would be equal numbers of men and women in the armed forces? Men have a biological bias towards testosterone and women eostrogen. Does this naturally mean that more men will be in the army than women? I would like to add that this is not a value judgement. I think women and men are perfectly capable on the battlefield equally.

With an eye to the game this is the way I present it. There are more men than women in the armed forces of the imperium and acting as mercenarys becuase of a biological predisposition to shoot stuff. I think also that the emperor chose men to be marines because men are disposable. Humanity and its countless numbers are the lifeblood of the imperium and in fact the very thing that holds it together. It only takes one man to sire a hundred children but it takes one women to sire 1-3 (or more) children. Women are therefore more important than men when considering the long term future of the race of mankind.

I dont know whether that is an inherently sexist/mysoginist viewpoint. I dont think so.

Thoughts comments welcome.

We had one female player in our group (5 guys, including me as GM), she had to take a break because of RL issues, but she was able and quite a good roleplayer.

As a History major I can safely say that women have been the most oppressed minority in all of recorded time. (and earlier)

Historically women are protected because they are a resource - without women you won't get another strong generation; you won't be able to pass down your life's efforts to an heir without a child; without women you won't have any way to replenish the population after warfare/disease/famine/etc.

Women have traditionally been drawn to certain roles do to the fact that raising a family limits one's mobility; hunting is rather difficult when you have children following you around. Thus women took to the production of textiles, clothing, light farming, and household chores. As society progressed and inherritance became more and more of an issue women were further limited to their options as men kept them under lock and key (sometimes literally) to prevent them from being injured or - worse yet - seduced by another man who'd threaten the legitimacy of his childrens' legacy.

For much of history women had no rights of their own - instead it being believed that her rights were represented by her husband. (it was assumed that the husbands vote, for example, counted for the entire household and his wife would naturally trust in his decision)

It was not uncommon for women to go into monestaries as their own real option of gaining an education. Even when a woman was educated, men natoriously dismissed their opinions as if they bore no more credence than that of a child ... as such female writers were often driven to publishing books under male pseudonyms.

Historically women have often wanted to go to war with their men, but been refused the right by their government. When this occurs they typically find other ways to support the war effort at home - earning money, collecting supplies, even performing heavy labor when the male work force was depleated. There have been instances of female fighting forces - notably 19th century china - which were even fairly successful ... but it must be noted this was during the era of the gun.

All political correctness aside, women are not as physically capable as men - on average; there are, of course, examples of women far more capable and men far less. As an example, in no Olympic sport does a woman's score beat that of their male contemporaries. Men have a higher potential for upper body strength and a higher stamina, which makes for better warriors in general. Men, being less empathic than women, are less traumatized by the sights and experiences of warfare.

Mind you, training makes up for a great deal, however in the case of an equally trained man and woman battling one another, the man will almost always win. Consider there is a practical reason why men and women are not allowed to play together in full contact sports - such as football, boxing, mixed martial arts, etc.

So, what's the situation in the Imperium? To an extent it depends upon the planet. Feudal worlds are going to value women a great deal less than their more progressive counterparts.

Women have always made up an important part of most religious practices ... though they are rarely given the same honor as male priests, their place as nuns, or similar figures can not be overplayed. Likewise, they have often been the target of hysterical fear and loathing - as the originators of sin and evil. Part of the reason women were targeted during the European witch hunts (which made Salem Mas. look like a sunday picnic) was a backlash of progression in female rights/importance in the community. (this was, by far, not the only reason - but one contributor) When men are used to women being subordinate, they react poorly to the idea that women might become something closer to "equals".

Really, if you look, very few rpgs address gender issues rather than a - possible - comment about the genders being equal ... and the topic is subsiquently forgot. This is because they want the game to be fun for everyone, including women; and who is going to enjoy playing a repressed and devalued member of society? (actually, I can see where there'd be great potential in that ... but not everyone would) Better, they figure, to ignore gender altogether and be done with it.

I recall there was a huge outcry when Age of Conan initually suggested the idea of placing a gender limit on certain character stats. (they were going to limit something different for both genders) There was an uproar on the boards and the idea was eventually dropped. Again, fun trumps realism every time.

Myself, I have often been bothered by the fact that women are social equals to mens in the various fantasy settings. I have no problem with women having access to all the same classes and even same stat limits - pcs are extraordinary people, after all - but in a medieval society it seems rediculous to say men and women are socially equal. Not to mention the fact it seriously overlooks a very solid subject for good rp.

In DH I'd probably pick an 19th century sensibility, wherein married women stayed at home and - in addition to raising children - did what work they could from the house ... while single women and widows would often end up in workhouses and sweat shops doing a great deal of work for too little pay, but choosing to anyway because it gave them some sense of independance. Other women might go into the nuneries or run brothels.

In the upper middle classes women would have more freedom and access to limited education. (considering how limited everyone is in DH) They might well organize Salons were men would come to discuss whatever deep thoughts and controversies might be popular at the time, with the woman playing knowledgable hostess. (actually I have often marveled at just how informed a Salon hostess must have been, as she was expected to be capable of discussing any and every topic which came up in a night - if only briefly)

Upper middle class women might also make up a good portion of the female military - as they have a freedom the upper and lower classes lack. Chances are they would not become infantry as a whole, but more often fill the ranks of snipers or backup gunners. Or, quite likely, many would end up in the navy serving as pilots and ship crews.

A very few - probably those of wealthy families - might end up in the Sororitas, serving - appropriately - as militant sisters.

Boy we really like to discuss gender in DH on these forums, don't we? Well, I suppose I'll risk participating again, despite the fact the last time did not end well for me.

Ordo Hydra said:

I think these are excellent observations. I think they are driven by something Locque said, that war-gaming is pretty male centric. For whatever reason, the folks buying GW miniatures are mostly men. So it follows naturally that like any good merchant, GW is going to slant things towards their target audience. "Come feel the softer side of War?" I'm not holding my breath.

I love Dark Heresy. Love it. It motivated me to switch sides of the gaming table after almost 15 years of being only a player. But I accept that I am not the target audience of this universe. I will fundamentally never share the same fascinations with super-manly space marines or giant scaly bugs that my male counterparts do. I am not expecting the maintainers of the source material to go out of their way for my gender with this particular product.

Besides, if I want to see more females in the setting, it is darn easy. I add them. I understand gender issues just fine, I don't need GW, or FFG, or anyone else to spend time writing about them, when that space could be devoted to detailing another heretical cult instead.

I'm sure Ordo Hydra's female player enjoyed the game despite the above, because he was capable of incorporating elements that were of interest to her, regardless of what was handed to him in a source book.

Again the Senior Cardinal apologizes for a poorly scripted post, the newer responses is what I was looking for, just experience with females gaming in DH and possible other areas, this is not a gender issue oddly enough. Thank the Emperor I did not mention the lack of anything but anglo-saxons taking over the Calixis sector. Never mention politics or religion at supper and never talk girls and boys on the Forum the Cardinal has learned his lesson. Thanks for those who saw past the fluff and brought up issues for gaming not "society". I just thought attention by FFG to females was lacking, compared to the depth of canon which I feel DH is behind the rest of GW, Black Library everyone one this issue.

Senior Cardinal Ignato said:

Did I focus too heavily of societal issues in my response? That wasn't really my intent ... everything I wrote was meant to pave the way for my thoughts on women's place in the 40k universe and DH specifically. I wanted people to have a bit of historical insight into the ideas which followed ... perhaps I over did it ... as an historian I tend to forget myself when talking about such things.

So, to experience with females playing the game - I haven't had any. However, that isn't do to the material, merely my female player taking a hiatus from the table. I do wish there was something in the game which addressed the gender positions in 40k society at large, but I wouldn't want it to take too much space away from the other setting material. After all, the truth of the matter is people will ignore that information in order to play the game they want anyway ... likely playing down the part of women in a purely male game, and playing it up when female players are present.

I don't give much thought to gender roles when I run games of any sort - deciding on the gender of an npc based either on need or whim. I don't think DH spends any less time addressing the subject than 99% of games on the market, so it really doesn't stand out to me in that area.

Thanks aethel. Thats very kind of you to say.

I think you points are spot on too. I'm awfully wary of getting drawn into a debate about the merits of the presentation of the female gender within Dark Heresy. Its never going to represent "gender issues" in any meaningful way without a serious redesign. And why would you want redesign it anyway? One might as well complain that there arn't enough guns and explosions in "Pride and Prejudice"!

I would "hope"that I have effectively addressed my female players concerns by allowing her character the scope and breadth to define what ever the hell she wants to be. As it happens she is a spacer who has descended forma long line of matriach rogue traders whose male lineage is generally weak and subservient (a background the player cam up with without too much knowledge of 40k). I feel that I have not twisted the 40k background in anyway with the precidents of female run clans in Clan Escher of Necromunda and the slightly wierd incestuous nature of long term spacers as defined by the crew of the Mesricord (bad spelling I know but I dont have the DH book handy - sorry!)

If you dont mind me aethel asking what is it that drew you to DH and more specifically to find it a strong enough rpg to cross the divide ebtween Gm and player?

Ordo Hydra said:

Ha ha. I actually have a similar analogy I sometimes use myself, which is that if a guy ever complained to me that My Little Pony the RPG wasn't tough enough, I'd laugh.

But anyway as to your question, I think it is the moral grayness of the universe. I love the idea that a true hero if the Imperium is a horrible, horrible person by 21'st century standards- and little represents that better than the Inquisition. (My favorite subject matter in 40k). The setting also has an extremely colorful framework in which to tell stories. I also really like the heavy gothic and religious imagery- eye candy for the mind.

I'm pretty eclectic in my likes, since (just for contrast) my second favorite story-telling setting is... Harry Potter. But in both cases it has to do with an established world with colorful things in it, against a backdrop meta-story of the war between good and evil.

Potter is also heavy with two other themes I really like: the bonds between lovers, and the bonds between families. But I've had a lot of success (I hope) integrating those with my Dark Heresy campaign. I actually think they help to personalize my game a lot. And I firmly believe that even 38,000 years in the future, we won't be able to escape the influence those things have on us.

hehe Yup I get the moral greyness. Its wonderful in that the opposite could be said of players who act in a truely moral and ethical manner (from a 21st century perspective) would be hounded as heretics and blasphemers! Great stuff. I also love the gothic religious imagery. Its like Catholicism on crack (no offence intended to any RCs). Angels do exist (in a manner of speaking) but tend to be a little twisted.

I also totally agree that any really good game needs "drama" (daaaahling! mwaaaah! ). If the characters are emotionally invested then eventually so will the players. sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, lovers all of these are just great plot hooks....or knives I can subtely stab the players in the back with. I am slowly introducing some of these into my campaign but I dont want to "over egg" or "go off half cocked". One of my characters is a priest (ex-ppenal legion) who has "remade" himself into abit of zealot. Little does he know his wife (believed dead) has joined a criminal cartel in order just to survive and hopefully find their two children (alos belived dead)....I have plans for them too.

Do you "tug the heart strings" often?

Maybe we sahould swap notes....you are afterall an award winning GM

Ordo Hydra said:

In order to present a different view on the matter I have to question your ideas of biological bias. What do you base the ideas you have about biological bias on and how much objective scientific truth can be connected with that basis?

You see, the scientific world has many times come up with theories about biological bias and the functions of bilogy in general, and although a few theories have been proved to be more sound than others, they are still just theories and most of them have been taken out of relevant contexts. If you want an example of this, take Darwins theory of evolution for instance. Most of the modern scientific world still considers this theory to be a sound and functional theory, simply because many aspcets of it has been confirmed by many historical and paleontological finds regarding extinct species etc.

Therefore it would be logical to deduce that many parts of Darwins theory of evolution is truthful and in synch with reality. BUT there are many parts of it that suffer from faltering logic. Take the concept of social Darwinism for instance, where some people (including Darwin himself) had taken a theory describing competetiveness between DIFFERENT species on the earth, and try to apply it on competition between different individuals of the same species (like man primarily). Suddenly the theory doesn't really work, because the theory of evolution isn't applicable on a single species. It can't account for many "biologically illogical" behaviours that humans engage in (like suicide for instance).

The point im trying to make here is that although we have access to many scientific theories about how biology and evolution works, you have to be aware of many of the absurd extremes and the usage of these theories out of their context in the desperate task of trying to understand the enviroment that we all live in.

So let's consider the term "biological bias" for a moment. What does it imply? Well, to narrow it down to a basic level, you could say that it means "what nature intended" or "how nature functions". Simply that some biological make-up has a "purpose" that it is meant or predisposed to fulfill.

Here's the kicker: the very concepts of "function" or "purpose" isn't "natural" really. These are concepts that mankind has invented in order to mentally grasp their enviroment. "Nature" or "the biology" if you will, never needed such concepts to exist. It just does. It existed long before us, and it will continue to exist even after mankind or even life itself for that matter is long since extinct. It doesn't need a purpose to do that, and it doesn't need to fulfill a "function". It just "is".

And that's where human objectivity have failed when constructing many of these "scientific" theories regarding life and biology. We have ascribed our own invented concepts like "function" or "purpose" or "predisposition", that WE need in order to not go insane when trying to understand the world around us, to a phenomenon that never needed these concepts to begin with (the phenomenon being nature itself, since it is neither a proven, self-aware entity nor a proven action).

So with that in mind, im sure you understand why I would disapprove of speaking in terms of "biological bias". Simply because by discussing it in those terms, you imply that you "understand" the very motivations of nature itself, which of course, no living or dead human could ever do (no not even Darwin). I mean, how can you claim to have an understanding of the motives of a phenomenon that never needed motives or purpose or predisposition to begin with?

Which also brings me to point out the fact that we don't really know what is "natural" and what isn't. For instance, there are a few fundamentalists out there who claim that homosexuality isn't "natural". But what do they base such claims on? Some base it on religion ("God says it's unnatural, therefore it must be so"), and some people who often have completely misunderstood the theory they are invoking, base it on the theory of evolution ("Darwin says it wouldn't work, therefore it must be wrong/unnatural"). And they still claim this despite the fact that homosexual behaviour is something that have followed mankind even before ancient times, and it has also been witnessed in other species than man as well.

So to put it bluntly, anyone throughout history who has EVER claimed a certain behaviour to be "unnatural", he or she didn't know what she was talking about. Mankind is a product of nature, therefore anything we do is as natural as anything else, be it launching atomic bombs at eachother or engaging in homosexual activities.

Which of course means that women (even in the 41st-millenium) would have just as a natural role on the battlefield as men. The reasons why the numbers might be imbalanced has nothing to do with nature or biological bias really, but more about abstract thinking (concepts, like chivalry, culture, religion etc. etc.) sprung from more psychological sources (mankinds mind).

In fact, that is what make mankind stand out as a sort of "mutation" according to natural history, simply because no other species (extinct or still living) has been found on our planet that have possessed the same degree of abstract abilities. And more importantly, mankind is one of the few species that isn't completely governed by the very basic programming of life (this being the genes willing to procreate), which further discredits the theories regarding biological bias. I mean if all life is "biologically biased" to keep on living and procreating, then why do we have several recorded instances were humans have committed suicide before giving birth to any children? According to the theory of evolution and other social biological theories, suicide simply doesn't make any sense. Yet still it occurs and will keep occuring.

Also, about the Emperor choosing men to be space marines, it was because the needed genetherapy to create them demanded high levels of testosterone and the relevant Y-chromosomes which women doesn't have, not because he considered men to be disposable (if he did that, then the very concept of space marines wouldn't make any sense, considering how much resources needed to create just a single astartes).

In fact The Emperor was a real idealist who had hope for mankind, and although he probably knew about how casualties are a necessity in warfare there i no source saying that the Emperor was a callous person towards neither men nor women.

Hope my points made it through, and excuse the very long post. Also, excuse any eventual misspellings. I try to keep them out, but my mind often works faster than my fingers can keep up.

Ordo Hydra said:

Funny you should mention it.

I think I saw this wierd re-make of "Pride and Prejudice" at my local sci-fi/fantasy-litterature store that was called: "Pride, Prejudice and Zombies". Can't speak of guns and explosions of course but at least some good soul out there decided to bring the much needed increase in amount of zombies to that book.

When in doubt: add more zombies!

Hi varnia.

I think you you missed my point. I wasnt talking about what is natural and what isnt ,or darwinism. My view was alittle simpler than that. Basically - Men have more testosterone than women. Testosterone increases athletic ability, endurance. Warfare being a physical activity will require those who can physically excel. Therefore those with most testosterone will do well in the armed forces. Does it not naturally follow therefore that statistically speaking there will always be more men in the army than women?

*shrug* I leave that up to you.

I was going to comment on the gene-sceince the emperor used and realised that it would be pointless discussing science in a science fiction setting. The theory and facts are at the very most, pretty vague.

I just find it difficult to believe that a super brain like the emperor couldnt make female super soldiers. The reason I gave is just a plausable hypothesis. I dont think either of us can truely know what the empeor was thinking.

Ordo Hydra said:

Oh yes, warfare can be a very physical activity. But technology have somewhat reduced the need for physical prowess. By modern standards even a civilian armed with a typical run-o-the-mill assault rifle is several times deadlier than probably ten trained soldiers from the middle ages. And you can bet your life savings that the soldiers from the middle ages were predominately men, but could today be gunned down by a single woman provided she know's how to operate an AK47 and has enough ammunition, regardless of any military training or physical prowess (well' she'd have to have enough musculature to handle the recoil of the assault rifle of course, but considering the fact that 10 year olds can do that, I don't think we need to include it in the equation).

In fact, the very reason why the AK47 has been such a successful weapon throughout the worlds armed forces is because it is so easy to maintain and operate, like most russian developed munitions (tanks, choppers etc.). The idea being that you can stick the gun in the hands of an untrained farmer (meaning civilian) and still have a pretty decent soldier in a few minutes of instruction.

What you see in military boot camps throughout the world today about demands in physique is just goverments wanting to cover every angle with their soldiers, which explains why they have to go through such tough training. But it is not necessarily a requirement to fight a war. At the very basic level all you need are people willing to fight, and weapons to arm them with. And considering the fact how much technology has reduced the need for physical prowess, then testosterone levels aren't really much of an issue.

The Imperium of Man has had guns since forever. And probably more advanced and rugged guns that we have today. Meaning that the sex on your soldiers won't be much of an issue, as long as they know how to point and shoot their lasguns, autoguns, bolters, auto cannons etc. etc.

You know what I mean?

Ordo Hydra said:

Not entirely pointless. The governing science in 40K are what Games Workshop have told us. And what they have told us is that to create a space marine, the subject needs to have a Y-chromosome in their DNA. If the subject doesn't, then the genetherapy won't work. Sure the Emperor might have been able to create female super soldiers as well, but according to the fluff it would be too much of a hassle in comparison to simply take male subjects and subject them to the gene therapy. Also bear in mind that not every male can be subjected to the gene therapy, and some even die during the process. Meaning that it only works on a select few.

Could the Emperor have done something about it? Perhaps. But then again he was a bit preoccupied with conquering the galaxy, and constructing a new web-way through the warp and all that. He might have been a "superbrain" by most standards, but he isn't really an omnipotent God (even if the Ecclesiarchy would probably have me burned for saying such things ), meaning he, like everybody else, had to prioritize.

I don't find it necessary to make a point of emphasizing either gender. Some of my NPC's are male, and some are female. Arguing the benefits, drawbacks, plausibility or mechanics of creating female Space Marines (for me) is also relatively moot, as the game and setting have established that the Emperor created male SM's long ago. I personally don't really have any opinion regarding the rectitude of this. It is what it is. That said, we have a player at our table who regularly plays frightfully mysoginistic characters, for which I gleefully put Sisters of Battle, Arbitrators and Sisters of Silence NPC's with him to give him a bit of come-uppance. The best was when he whined about how the SoB was wearing better armor than him, and how he could "stomp her scrawny b17ch a@@ if given the opportunity". She calmly removed her armor (down to the bodyglove) and proceeded to beat him up and down the galley. When he was finaly unconscious, she used her lip balm to paint a fluer-de-lis on his forehead, which he was unaware of until he passed a mirror. Too much fun.

Illithidelderbrain said:

Playing ******* characters can provide so much fun for any gaming session. Whether they be misogynistic bastards, sociopathic murderers who are completely dead inside, or even the odd racist bigot.

The scary part about playing such characters is because they are almost too fun to play, so you lose yourself in utter *******:ness and seldom roll up decent and likeable characters.

I seem to have the opposite impression to many posters here - namely that the 40K Universe is actually one potentially very open to the use of female characters. I've seen little in 40K fluff to suggest that the highest echelons of Imperial society are closed to women or its key servants are male and much to suggest there is a basic equality. Schola Progena are clearly mixed, or they would not be the source of Sisters of Battle. Yet not all female Progena become Sisters. Graduates of these schools are destined to fill the highest posts in the Imperium. I'm not incredibly well versed in 40K novels etc but I know that there have been female Inquisitors featured (in Gaunt's Ghosts), there is a female Arbites officer who has her own series of books, and female assassins are a basic staple of the background. I really can't believe, given the general philosophy of human warfare expressed in 40K, that female soldiers are not employed on the battlefield. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that women make less effective soldiers than men (slight differences in levels of physical strength and aggression taken as an average across the species as a whole make very little difference to actual combat effectiveness, which has far more to do with unit cohesion than it does to do with who is taller and can lift more), and the Imperium is unlikely to see its female citizens as less expendable resources than its male citizens when it is necessary to fight the enemies of humanity.

In my games I frequently have female NPCs encountered in senior positions. No-one has yet suggested to me that this is odd or not in keeping with canon, and I have some real 40K nerds for players. I have a female player, but she actually wanted to play a male character. For a while I also had a male player playing a female character. Both worked fine, largely because I had players who were mature enough to be able to play characters who were not walking gender stereotypes. I actually play female characters in two play by post DH games. I've never done this in WFRP (the other major game I play) largely because I've always assumed that the Old World follows the sort of social conventions you'd expect in a Renaissance setting, which essentially means that female adventurers (generally unmarried and unsupervised by male relatives) would be assumed to be beggars and vagabonds at best and whores at worst by the majority of people they encountered unless they were obviously members of the clergy or some other reputable profession.