"The eyes are up here . . . and down there, too, I guess."
A number of people, seeing the Sisters of Battle (and I speak of the official GW models and art, not proxies or any kind of fanart) raise accusations of objectification. The models depict conventionally-attractive 20-somethings wearing (arguably unrealistically) tight armor whose torso has both a molded (literal!) breastplate and which is patterned after a corset (complete with elements suggesting lacing). Some of the models (including
Canoness Veridyan) are wearing high heels and what has been described as "a skull bra".
While I think some third-party models and a lot of fanart is objectifying, I don't think the official GW models or artwork (with the exception of the Repentia) are. Unpacking exactly
why they aren't (in my view) objectifying is difficult - first, it's having to prove a negative. But, if I
had to explain, I would talk about
agency. Agency can be defined as "the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power", and is often understood to refer to
self-agency. That is, the ability to determine ones own actions and influence outcomes which affect one. Objectification is a denial of agency; a person is treated not as a person but rather an
object to be controlled by others.
Repentia have been denied agency by the shaming rituals they have undergone. But the rest of the Sister's range suggests they have agency. While the models are objects to serve the interests of others (gamers!) the characters they represent are not and do not appear to be so. In particular, it is clear they have sexual agency - canonically, Sisters of Battle are not passive females existing without personalities, merely for male gratification, or acting as a "reward" for male heroes etc.
That train of thought leads to complex discussions which are beyond the scope of this post - not merely the subject of sexuality as practiced in the Imperium and by the Sisters (although I do want to write that post), but also the can-of-worms that the depiction of female characters in fiction. I realize students of such things, being presented with an all-female, ultra-religious, fighting force depicted as conventionally-attractive young women wearing armor that is (at best) described as "stylized" would have
plenty to say. There is a case to be made that the depiction of the Sisters of Battle in this manner - indeed, the whole idea of the Sisters of Battle - is unacceptable.
I am not mounting a defense here - not because I do not want to, but because I have not advanced that thesis (nor do I think I could do it justice) and so I would be defending against something which doesn't exist. If there are people who have made that thesis, I would be interested in seeing it.
Rather than mount a defense, I will instead mount an
offense - hopefully, without being offensive! I hope to make the case that the aesthetic of the Sisters of Battle is appropriate, logical, and not only makes sense, but is actually the
most appropriate aesthetic.
First, what is their aesthetic? Some people have suggested - because of the form-fitting black armor and corset-like plastrons - they have elements of BDSM. I disagree with this - although I do admit the Repentia (which I do not use in my armies) do call that into question. Rather, I argue their aesthetic is - in addition to the Imperium's "grimdark cathedrals and skulls" -
hyper-feminine.
Throughout history, female (and, to a degree, male) costuming has sought to emphasize secondary-sexual characteristics, particularly anatomical sexual dimorphism. Various compressing or padded garments have been used to slim waists, widen hips, bolster breasts etc. Similarly, cosmetics have been used to enhance existing features beyond natural. In recent years, the use of surgery and photo-editing has allowed for even more extreme modifications.
The result is an exaggerated femininity; a physical appearance "more female than female". Historically, there are many reasons why this was pursued - sexual signalling being the main one. However, even in societies and communities where overt sexual signalling was not approved, costuming has still been used to emphasize the differences between the genders; men do not wear women's clothes and vice versa.
What does this have to do with the Imperium and Sisters of Battle?
The Decree Passive states the Ecclesiarchy shall have "no men under arms". This is interpreted by all parties
not as "no warriors" but rather "no
male warriors". Accordingly, it is clear the Imperium of Man believes in distinct two distinct genders which are quantitatively different. It is clear that both men and women are
human persons but that men are men (and not women) and that women are women (and, most importantly for the Decree Passive,
not men.)
The lynchpin of the Sisters of Battle legal existence, the thing which prevents the High Lords from ordering their destruction as a violation of the Decree Passive, is their gender. That - the fact they are women, not men - is just as much as part of their identity as their piety, and showing that via costume choices should be just as high a priority.
Sisters' costuming is hyper-feminine. The corset-like armor, sculpted breastplates and decorations (skulls or fleurs-de-lys) designed to emphasize the breasts, high-heels, and even make-up are not only mechanisms which exaggerate female sexual dimorphism, but which are
only used by women. Men in the Imperium of Man (as shown by the models) do not commonly wear corsets, make-up, high-heels etc. The armor of the Adepta Sororitas is "exaggeratedly female". I put that in quotes because it is not merely my opinion, but an actual Warhammer 40,000 description. Below is a scan from a (admittedly third-party) First Edition 40K book. It references female Space Marines, and specifically compares their armor (which is regular Marine armor) to that of the Sisters;
Sisters' "exaggeratedly female" armor is specifically described as "symbolic rather than practical" - which is entirely my point. Sisters of Battle do not wear form-fitting armor with corset-like plastrons, a hip-emphasizing V and sculpted breasts so they look "sexy". They wear it so they look
hyper-female because their gender is the only thing that
allows them to exist. They don't put skulls and fleurs-de-lys on their breasts so Guardsmen will buy them a drink in the enlisted men's mess - they do it so there is no doubt about the fact they are women. A Guardswoman wouldn't wear a sculpted breastplate (or even makeup) - because her identity and permission to exist isn't intimately tied up with her gender.
A Sister of Battle's aesthetic is intended to convey many things - her military prowess, her piety and devotion to the Emperor, her status as an elite warrior of the Ecclesiarchy and Imperium - but one of the most important (if not the most important) is her gender. Conventional physical attractiveness is an unintended byproduct, not the goal. The central message a Sister of Battle's appearance is designed to convey is; "I am woman, hear the Ecclesiarchy roar."
"I'm real, and I'm spectacular."
Of course, other people may disagree with this - some people will find my arguments mere rationalization, nothing more than an excuse to paint an army of beautiful women wearing corset-and-bustle armor. Others might say I am overthinking it, that "rule of cool" means it's perfectly fine for Sisters to be sexy broads in power-corsets and laser-heels, and that is the whole point. It's your game - play it (or don't play it) however you like.
There is, however, a single point I will close with; Sister's armor is "symbolic rather than practical". Many people will say it is actually impractical. High-heels are terrible to fight (or run, or do much except totter about) in.
Sculpted "boob-armor" would kill you (or
not, depending on who you read). "Enhancing" armor trades protection and functionality for exaggeration and aesthetics. And, of course, this doesn't even get into the questions of enormous shoulder pads and massive gilded eagles and the like.
Although it probably should. My defense against any accusation of specific impracticality in Sisters' armor would be to say "Yes, it is impractical -
just like everything else in the 40K universe." It's not even a question of suspension of disbelief - "wait, you can accept daemons and aliens and psychic powers and quasi-magical genetic engineering, but not that a girl can run in heels?" Sisters' power armor is no more impractical than Space Marine power armor, or an Imperial flier, or a Titan. If you can accept a Space Marine can reach above his head, you can accept Canoness Veridyan's Lady Gaga shoes are eminently practical for the battlefields of the 41st millennium.
