Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Crimson wrote:
Because issue is not the Imperium being bigoted. It is and can be. It is just better this bigotry is "fantasy bigotry" directed towards space aliens and psykers, neither of which are real.
But you're confusing in universe and out of universe reasoning. Increased representation is on an in universe issue, it is a real world issue.

What if the setting itself is the problem?

Or the edition churn? Or the terrible, unbalanced rules? Or the insane miniatures prices? Why are people certain that gender is the decisive factor? Has anyone conducted any kind of market research?

When existence of women and minorities in the game's fictions and around the gaming table has become unremarkable, and marginal increases in the representation in the fiction do not conjure an embarrassing storm of nerdrage.

Unremarkable to whom?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

What if the setting itself is the problem?

Or the edition churn? Or the terrible, unbalanced rules? Or the insane miniatures prices? Why are people certain that gender is the decisive factor? Has anyone conducted any kind of market research?

Those certainly could be issues, but most of them are really not related to the gender disparity.

Unremarkable to whom?

Everyone.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I for one think it is an absolute hoot that the Imperium is allowed to wipe out entire worlds, exterminate species, sacrifice a thousand humans a day to the Emperori and commit every manner of horrific atrocity, but gender inequality, that's right out. Burning heretics? We'll allow it.

You're still missing the point that the issue isn't that the Imperium doesn't have gender equality. The issue is that the Imperium does have gender equality, but there are these several edge cases that don't, and it doesn't make sense.


If the Imperium was strictly male dominated and the women all just stayed home and made babies, that would be at least consistent. But in a setting where women can serve in any capacity in the army and navy, can be High Lords, Assassins, Tech-priests, Ministorum Priests, Commissars, Planetary Governors, Psyker Lords, or Rogue Traders and are treated by that setting as being every bit as effective in those roles as the men, it makes no sense for them to be arbitrarily excluded from being Marines or Custodes.

 Crimson wrote:
Those certainly could be issues, but most of them are really not related to the gender disparity.

Source? I mean actual market data surveys, not stuff you've made up in your head. Or a TV/movie reference.

Everyone.

So if one person disagrees, does your metric fail? How will you verify this universal agreement?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

If the Imperium was strictly male dominated and the women all just stayed home and made babies, that would be at least consistent. But in a setting where women can serve in any capacity in the army and navy, can be High Lords, Assassins, Tech-priests, Ministorum Priests, Commissars, Planetary Governors, Psyker Lords, or Rogue Traders and are treated by that setting as being every bit as effective in those roles as the men, it makes no sense for them to be arbitrarily excluded from being Marines or Custodes.

As many others have explained, it isn't arbitrary, some folks just don't want to accept the reasons.

To fulfill their roles, Marines and Custodes must be physically massive, and it is an indisputable fact that human males are taller and stronger than females.

That's not true of the other professions you named. It's anti-logical to assume that because women can fulfill the very specific skillset of fighter pilot they can also hump 100 pounds of gear through the mountains. Totally different tasks.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Source? I mean actual market data surveys, not stuff you've made up in your head. Or a TV/movie reference.

Logic. For example there is no reason to think that women would be more discerning regarding the quality of game rules than men, so that will not be a factor.

So if one person disagrees, does your metric fail? How will you verify this universal agreement?

Yes, sure, literally everyone. We need to ask all of the eight billion people of the planet individually what they think. Or alternatively when the overall culture around the game has changes so that this sort of silly outcry regarding these sort of topics no longer happens, and when women no longer routinely report that they feel unwelcome.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
To fulfill their roles, Marines and Custodes must be physically massive, and it is an indisputable fact that human males are taller and stronger than females.

That's not true of the other professions you named. It's anti-logical to assume that because women can fulfill the very specific skillset of fighter pilot they can also hump 100 pounds of gear through the mountains. Totally different tasks.

Yes, that is a stumbling block, right there. If only there were some sort of process by which pre-pubescent children could have their growth stimulated, turning them into genetically enhanced super soldiers.

Alas, such things are the realm of science fiction.

AldarionTelcontar wrote: "Culture and traditional views" are product of society responding to reality.

Culture also says that men correspond with blue, and women with pink, and- oh. Hang on, pink used to be a masculine colour.

Uh, let's see, culture dictated that men wore stockings and skirts? Oh, but now, that's just supposed to be women.

How about cultures around the proliferation of slavery? And those "traditional views"?

No. Culture and tradition are not based in "reality". They are artificial. They are made up by people.

And while part of the reason why women were kept out of the military is that it is slowed to sacrifice the childbearing portion of your population in war when you don't know how long any of you will live, part of it is the simple fact that women are, on average, less physically capable than men.

And yet, still capable enough in 40k. Evidently so.

But as I said - major part of appeal of 40k are its pseudo-medieval aesthetics and attitudes. Adeptus Custodes and Space Marines in particular are akin to medieval religious orders, and you will not have found women in any medieval religious military order, for a large number of disparate reasons.

So why are Sisters of Battle, a religious military order who take stronger aesthetic cues from medieval periods than most Chapters of Space Marines, okay in the setting then? If "pseudo-medieval aesthetics and attitudes" are a "major part of the appeal of 40k", then why are Sisters of Battle, a medieval religious military order, all okay if apparently that's something "you will not have found"?

Like, do you see the problem in your argument there? If 40k is apparently slaved to this idea that "we must accurately portray historical armies to be true to the appeal of 40k" (ignoring the fact that Custodes and Space Marines are actually technologically augmented supersoldiers in powered armour with firearms and come from all manner of ethnicities and cultures, none of which are accurate to any real world culture or history), then Sisters of Battle shouldn't be permitted either.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:To fulfill their roles, Marines and Custodes must be physically massive, and it is an indisputable fact that human males are taller and stronger than females.

But Space Marines and Custodes are neither: they are superhuman, and are only ABLE to be physically massive not because they're male, but because they're genetically modified, or in the case of Custodes, genetically rewritten.

Lest I remind you, they are recruited as pre-pubescent CHILDREN. They are not physically massive when recruited. They are, in fact, very weak, because they are children.

That's not true of the other professions you named. It's anti-logical to assume that because women can fulfill the very specific skillset of fighter pilot they can also hump 100 pounds of gear through the mountains. Totally different tasks.

When was the last time you saw Custodes humping 100 pound of gear through the mountains?

I'll just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcLRqXE7Les

Puts it into better words than a lot of us can.

FlubDugger wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

FlubDugger wrote:
]Starship Troopers had both women and men, and people of all colours serving in the Mobile Infantry. They were all very frequently eviscerated by the bugs, regardless of where they were on the physical strength scale

The book or the very silly movie?

Seriously why do people cite TV shows and movies as credible sources of scientific fact?

I'm not the one who initially brought up Starship Troopers? I was replying to a comment that erroneously stated that Starship troopers had different forces segregated by gender. Whether that should apply to something else is a different conversational point, but someone shouldn't invoke it if they're wrong.

Point of clarity: The Commissar is referencing the book Starship Troopers, which is quite different than the movie. In the book only men are in the Mobile Infantry. Women are pilots. It was also written in the 50's.

 MalusCalibur wrote:
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcLRqXE7Les

Puts it into better words than a lot of us can.

Does it, though?

I got as far as him claiming Custodes are Space Marines, and suggesting that common sense has anything to do with the 40k setting, and hit the back button.

 MalusCalibur wrote:
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcLRqXE7Les

Puts it into better words than a lot of us can.

"Critical Drinker" is the best you can do?

Yeah, he's way out of his depth here and likely just cashing in on the outrage.

 Crimson wrote:

Logic. For example there is no reason to think that women would be more discerning regarding the quality of game rules than men, so that will not be a factor.

Based on what data? If you're going to assert a cause and effect, you have to show the math.

And yes, there is clear scientific data that men and women place different values on things. This is not in any way disputable. So it's entirely logical that women find the complexity, instability and expense of GW more of a barrier than men do.

 MalusCalibur wrote:
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcLRqXE7Les

Puts it into better words than a lot of us can.

That video is hilarious. Not on purpose, mind you.

He, first off, is confused with Custodes just being "more elite" space marines. This tells me that he has no idea about the actual lore, isn't a 40k fan, and is just adding his opinion from outside.

Then, he accuses everyone who both enacted and supports this change of being "outsiders of the 40k community". Just, hillarious. A quiet simple case of the accuser being the perpetrator.

To be fair, Custodes have basically felt like even more roided up Space Marines. The 'confusion' can also be just a reduction to laymans terms.

You got your Space Marines
Your Deathwatch: SM+
Your GK: SM++
And then your Custodes: SM+++

Imo it's an acceptable shorthand.

 Insectum7 wrote:
To be fair, Custodes have basically felt like even more roided up Space Marines. The 'confusion' can also be just a reduction to laymans terms.

You got your Space Marines
Your Deathwatch: SM+
Your GK: SM++
And then your Custodes: SM+++

Imo it's an acceptable shorthand.

Nah. It isn't. Any true 40k fan knows the difference. You know that as well as I do. Dude doesn't play 40k. Doesn't read the novels. Has no clue. He's an outsider. Which is what he's accusing others of being. Which is sooooo funny.

^I can't speak for the 'tuber, but as a 'real' 40k player I've referred to Custodes casually as "just bigger Space Marines." Differences be damned.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I can't speak for the 'tuber, but as a 'real' 40k player I've referred to Custodes casually as "just bigger Space Marines." Differences be damned.

Sure. But you still understand the difference in the creation process and recruitment process. The "Drinker", obviously doesn't.

I'm not sure how much it matters how much he knows. It sure seems like a lot of commentators on the either side miss a lot of the nuances in the 40k verse, either out of ignorance or convenience.

I do agree that much of the noise is people trying to cash in on controversy though.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm not sure how much it matters how much he knows. It sure seems like a lot of commentators on the either side miss a lot of the nuances in the 40k verse, either out of ignorance or convenience.

I do agree that much of the noise is people trying to cash in on controversy though.

It matters because he accuses others of the same. He's a hypocrite.

And agreed on people trying to cash in on the controversy (the Drinker being a prime example).

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm not sure how much it matters how much he knows. It sure seems like a lot of commentators on the either side miss a lot of the nuances in the 40k verse, either out of ignorance or convenience.

I do agree that much of the noise is people trying to cash in on controversy though.

It matters because he accuses others of the same. He's a hypocrite.

And agreed on people trying to cash in on the controversy (the Drinker being a prime example).

Eh, I'm not going to watch the video to judge.

I think in the drive to meet the 10 min mark for optimal monetization or whatever, a lot of people say a lot of things that smack of hypocrisy, honestly. Gotta get those youtube bucks somehow!

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
To be fair, Custodes have basically felt like even more roided up Space Marines. The 'confusion' can also be just a reduction to laymans terms.

You got your Space Marines
Your Deathwatch: SM+
Your GK: SM++
And then your Custodes: SM+++

Imo it's an acceptable shorthand.

Nah. It isn't. Any true 40k fan knows the difference. You know that as well as I do. Dude doesn't play 40k. Doesn't read the novels. Has no clue. He's an outsider. Which is what he's accusing others of being. Which is sooooo funny.

Define "true fan". I've been in this hobby since 1997. To me custodes are just space marines in golden armor that never leave Terra. Because "real fans" don't recognize any lore during or after Ward.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm not sure how much it matters how much he knows. It sure seems like a lot of commentators on the either side miss a lot of the nuances in the 40k verse, either out of ignorance or convenience.

I do agree that much of the noise is people trying to cash in on controversy though.

It matters because he accuses others of the same. He's a hypocrite.

Hypocrisy doesn't make him wrong, though.

Besides semantics, in which case people are just being pedantic here about him saying "more elite space marines" (please, guys, stop), he's pretty spot on with everything.

Anyway, I personally do not mind female Custodes. What I DO mind is:

- The insult to players' intelligence w/ the twitter post of "oh, it's always been that way, kid." Okay, clearly their twitter community manager doesn't know the lore and tells us lies.
- Also, why even retcon it? Why not just create NEW lore to include female Custodes? Like, it's beyond me why they didn't just add new lore. This likely all would've been prevented if they just added new lore instead of retconning existing lore.
- Also also, why not just promote Sisters of Silence and Sisters of Battle more? Is it truly just to test homogenizing a single faction to see how well it goes w/ fans?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm not sure how much it matters how much he knows. It sure seems like a lot of commentators on the either side miss a lot of the nuances in the 40k verse, either out of ignorance or convenience.

I do agree that much of the noise is people trying to cash in on controversy though.

It matters because he accuses others of the same. He's a hypocrite.

And agreed on people trying to cash in on the controversy (the Drinker being a prime example).

Eh, I'm not going to watch the video to judge.

I think in the drive to meet the 10 min mark for optimal monetization or whatever, a lot of people say a lot of things that smack of hypocrisy, honestly. Gotta get those youtube bucks somehow!

Seriously? You haven't watched the video? But you continue to defend it? Insectum7, I am disappointed. I give up. Say what you want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBZj5OvSI2U

For those who'll be convinced from a woman's perspective to understand the "bigots" who are against this change, for some reason. Or you can just call her a bigot, too, I guess.

Removed.

Note - I have pruned out the argument over Starship Troopers: The Book vs The Movie, as it's not really relevant here.

Uptonius wrote:
Define "true fan". I've been in this hobby since 1997. To me custodes are just space marines in golden armor that never leave Terra. Because "real fans" don't recognize any lore during or after Ward.

If you're disregarding any background material from Ward's era onwards, Custodes are half naked guys with pointy helmets and laser spears, and we know nothing more about them. There was never any suggestion that they were Space Marines, and the studio guys expressly said on at least one or two occasions that they were not.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
Anyway, I personally do not mind female Custodes. What I DO mind is:

- The insult to players' intelligence w/ the twitter post of "oh, it's always been that way, kid." Okay, clearly their twitter community manager doesn't know the lore and tells us lies.

Once again, it's not a lie. It's an in-universe clarification. Their twitter manager does know the 'lore'... and as of right now, the 'lore' is that there have always been female Custodes.

- Also, why even retcon it? Why not just create NEW lore to include female Custodes? Like, it's beyond me why they didn't just add new lore. This likely all would've been prevented if they just added new lore instead of retconning existing lore.

Because in an Imperium that is specifically designed to be mostly stagnant, there is only so much room for advancement. So some changes are written as a new thing, and some are written as (now) having always been that way. That's not a new thing... they've been switching freely between those two for as long as they've been publishing the game.

- Also also, why not just promote Sisters of Silence and Sisters of Battle more? Is it truly just to test homogenizing a single faction to see how well it goes w/ fans?

Why not both?

Uptonius wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
To be fair, Custodes have basically felt like even more roided up Space Marines. The 'confusion' can also be just a reduction to laymans terms.

You got your Space Marines
Your Deathwatch: SM+
Your GK: SM++
And then your Custodes: SM+++

Imo it's an acceptable shorthand.

Nah. It isn't. Any true 40k fan knows the difference. You know that as well as I do. Dude doesn't play 40k. Doesn't read the novels. Has no clue. He's an outsider. Which is what he's accusing others of being. Which is sooooo funny.

Define "true fan". I've been in this hobby since 1997. To me custodes are just space marines in golden armor that never leave Terra. Because "real fans" don't recognize any lore during or after Ward.

They were never space marines. Not before Ward or after.

 insaniak wrote:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
Anyway, I personally do not mind female Custodes. What I DO mind is:

- The insult to players' intelligence w/ the twitter post of "oh, it's always been that way, kid." Okay, clearly their twitter community manager doesn't know the lore and tells us lies.

Once again, it's not a lie. It's an in-universe clarification. Their twitter manager does know the 'lore'... and as of right now, the 'lore' is that there have always been female Custodes.

I haven't read this entire thread, so I'm not sure if you are being pedantic about "retcon" vs "clarification". But official lore says "men only", so I'm not sure how this change is a clarification. It's a retcon, plain and simple. No mental gymnastics required.

 insaniak wrote:

- Also also, why not just promote Sisters of Silence and Sisters of Battle more? Is it truly just to test homogenizing a single faction to see how well it goes w/ fans?

Why not both?

?? Is the fact this backlash exists not enough to show "why not both"? But okay, sure, I'm all for movements that risk backlash. But besides that, loss of revenue, disrespect to the lore, insulting the fans, etc are all reasons to not have done this this way. Being guided by a corpo agenda is a reason to not do things in general, too. Oh, and also, homogenization is not good, if the "why not both" response actually supports the idea of homogenization of a faction. The irony of wanting diversity is that it just ends up in homogenization, the opposite of diversity. Within the part and within the whole. Keep diversifying every faction to the point of homogenization and by 2055, it'll just be genderfluid beefcakes vs genderfluid beefcakes, just with different headgear.

Also, did you have a real answer? Or just going to reply to a question with a question? Because clearly that question of yours should be directed to GW, not me.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
But official lore says "men only"

no, not any more
official lore is that there have always been female Custodes everything else is not official, or canon or whatever

if you have any old books around saying something different, those are outdated and you should update to latest version to be up to date