Just Tony wrote: You feel that the fluff should be rewritten to make every faction co-ed as to allow an even mix of female models in every army, correct? Wouldn't that basically render the differences thematically and aesthetically between SOB and SM obsolete?
Only if you think their sex is the only defining trait of those factions.
Just Tony wrote: You feel that the fluff should be rewritten to make every faction co-ed as to allow an even mix of female models in every army, correct? Wouldn't that basically render the differences thematically and aesthetically between SOB and SM obsolete?
Only if you think their sex is the only defining trait of those factions.
No, but their sex IS a defining trait, and nobody can debate that.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, if in-universe doesn't count, why the double standard on the Decree Passive and the Creation of a Space Marine article?
Because of the relevant differences between those are out of universe, of course.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Allow me to reiterate it. Without real life concerns and reasons of our world, such as representation of groups, why should Space Marine lore change?
Without reasons of our world, it's pretty hard to tell, because since the 40k world doesn't actually exists, well… everything, I mean everything in 40k happens because of real life reasons. Everything. Like for instance “Some GW writer wants to make a story that's compelling to read of real-life” or “GW wants to sell miniatures in real life”…
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Funny, but I don't see any of the latter part of your response in there.
Yeah, apparently you didn't quote the right part. I may get access to my codex this week-end, if so I'll post the relevant quotes.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There are two mono-gender factions, both opposing, and if Space Marine saturation was reduced and the Sisters getting more love and time, what would be the problem?
And what if the sun turned into an ice-cream too? We will never see the Sisters developed nearly as much as the marines. It is even worth mentioning how some codex (can't remember which one, maybe it's rather the WD article that got all the nice fluff in it) don't have much deviation between orders, while marines have a HUGE diversity among chapters, which means marines will always get more variety than Sisters…
I thought it was hinted at in a recent codex. Still more than for any other faction in the lore except maybe dark eldar, no?
Veteran Sergeant wrote: In-universe though, the distinction between a Space Wolf and an Ultramarine is a question of fur pelts and helmet crests. Fundamentally they're the same thing.
That's like saying every human soldier is the same because they are all human and all soldiers. Okay, that is your opinion and I respect it. But I definitely do not share it. Space Marines subfactions are way more differentiated by GW than for any other faction. The only one that should be even more varied according to the fluff would be IG but those differences are never expanded around the way they are for Space Marines.
Just Tony wrote: You feel that the fluff should be rewritten to make every faction co-ed as to allow an even mix of female models in every army, correct? Wouldn't that basically render the differences thematically and aesthetically between SOB and SM obsolete?
Only if you think their sex is the only defining trait of those factions.
No, but their sex IS a defining trait, and nobody can debate that.
So that would make ONE defining trait away. Not make all the numerous other thematic and aesthetic different suddenly become obsolete.
Just Tony wrote: You feel that the fluff should be rewritten to make every faction co-ed as to allow an even mix of female models in every army, correct? Wouldn't that basically render the differences thematically and aesthetically between SOB and SM obsolete?
Only if you think their sex is the only defining trait of those factions.
No, but their sex IS a defining trait, and nobody can debate that.
So that would make ONE defining trait away. Not make all the numerous other thematic and aesthetic different suddenly become obsolete.
But if you ARE taking away the main difference between them, sex, then you are left with two mixed gender power armor armies with bolters, Rhinos, and the like. You basically guarantee nobody would touch Sisters with a ten foot pole in that case, as they'd simply be cheaper worse Marines at that point. Currently the ONLY draw Sisters have is their background as a mainly female army, which is easily run as a completely female army by not running any of the available male models from the Codex. As a Sisters fan, I figured you above anyone else would understand that, but then I see your sig and realize that's not the case...
Anemone wrote: If the only draw Sisters have is that they are all female that is a problem in of itself.
I certainly do not play a faction simply because of its sexual composition.
GW doesn't seem to mix in females very much into its product line or faction line. The Eldar and Dark Eldar are about the only sprues that have a mixed gender torso selection. The only other time females seem to appear is when in all female units or forces like SoB, Howling Banshees, or Wyches. Ok, maybe Banshees or Wyches are not literally 100% female but they are predominantly female, and for Wyches the females are clearly in charge. Basically GW has Amazon depictions of women.
Just Tony wrote: Boneville, I'm not going to quote your copious walls of text, I'm just going to sum up a few points.
You feel that the fluff should be rewritten to make every faction co-ed as to allow an even mix of female models in every army, correct? Wouldn't that basically render the differences thematically and aesthetically between SOB and SM obsolete?
If so, how would you feel if they got the license and permission to start a Drac army in 40K? They are explicitly asexual, reproducing without binary reproduction, and have no sexes OR gender roles. Would that need to be rewritten to cater to your wants? Would you basically say everything Larry B. Longyear wrote in the fiction of his creation?
I'll wait til you get back to me on that.
More or less correct, i wouldnt say every army because there are exceptions. Tyranids is one where i dont feel that gender plays a role at all for example. For necrons there are regalias of queens like cleopatra that could make good models. But yes, the human factions i feel hasnt done enough with their gender limitations to warrant it wich is why i feel it should be changed.
I dont see a problem with the overlapping of the two factions as one is drawn from super soldiers genetically enhanced etc and addinmg space marines wouldnt necessarily mean that all current space marines get genderswapped but would allow for female space marine chapters and mixed ones of course, the other faction can then explore the religious themes of the ecclisiarchy, so i dont see the thematic and aesthetic overlap.
from my research on the drac, they seem to be written explicitly to be alien. i dont see how they would be rewritten considering the point was to be inhuman and alien to us. Much like the tyranids and daemons (although i have huge problems with slaanesh, and their "supposed" androgenous appereance) but more of a "mirror" being. The point has always been that the space marines always has been linked too humanity so they dont have that "pass".
Had the space marines been introduced as a separate hemaphroditic alien faction i wouldnt have a problem.
So an army of entirely male Amazons as someone makes the models able to be 50/50 ratios means someone will inevitably run nothing but one sex. We're not going to throw gender into it, since ANY model can identify as a gender different than their sex. Actually, that might be the best out for you, since you're looking for a reason to do this and it might work in the fluff. Y chromosome? Yep. Identifies as female? Check. Techically, that would make them female Space Marines, or you are invalidating the entire Trans community. You could even run them as The Rainbow Warriors just to make sure you have everything covered.
Past that, the part where someone told you about the Slayers. Same thing applies as far as that goes. You either need to accept the background as it is, or find wiggle room, like I gave you in the last paragraph.
That would make for a cool army i wont refute that, but that would be creating something else and not the female space marines as was the discussion. if someone would run these with only male or female models, well, they can do what they like the important part is that the option is presented both in official models and official lore.
Just saying its what the developer wanted is an extremely lazy way to dismiss a discussion, its what happened in video games for a long time now with a recent example being quiet in metal gear solid 5. just because the developers/writers wanted it that way doesnt give it a free pass or that everyone has to like their decision. by extension it also means that you cant criticise anything from 40k background regardless of who made it because, its what the writer wanted.
Just Tony wrote: Boneville, I'm not going to quote your copious walls of text, I'm just going to sum up a few points.
You feel that the fluff should be rewritten to make every faction co-ed as to allow an even mix of female models in every army, correct? Wouldn't that basically render the differences thematically and aesthetically between SOB and SM obsolete?
If so, how would you feel if they got the license and permission to start a Drac army in 40K? They are explicitly asexual, reproducing without binary reproduction, and have no sexes OR gender roles. Would that need to be rewritten to cater to your wants? Would you basically say everything Larry B. Longyear wrote in the fiction of his creation?
I'll wait til you get back to me on that.
More or less correct, i wouldnt say every army because there are exceptions. Tyranids is one where i dont feel that gender plays a role at all for example. For necrons there are regalias of queens like cleopatra that could make good models. But yes, the human factions i feel hasnt done enough with their gender limitations to warrant it wich is why i feel it should be changed.
I dont see a problem with the overlapping of the two factions as one is drawn from super soldiers genetically enhanced etc and addinmg space marines wouldnt necessarily mean that all current space marines get genderswapped but would allow for female space marine chapters and mixed ones of course, the other faction can then explore the religious themes of the ecclisiarchy, so i dont see the thematic and aesthetic overlap.
from my research on the drac, they seem to be written explicitly to be alien. i dont see how they would be rewritten considering the point was to be inhuman and alien to us. Much like the tyranids and daemons (although i have huge problems with slaanesh, and their "supposed" androgenous appereance) but more of a "mirror" being. The point has always been that the space marines always has been linked too humanity so they dont have that "pass".
Had the space marines been introduced as a separate hemaphroditic alien faction i wouldnt have a problem.
So an army of entirely male Amazons as someone makes the models able to be 50/50 ratios means someone will inevitably run nothing but one sex. We're not going to throw gender into it, since ANY model can identify as a gender different than their sex. Actually, that might be the best out for you, since you're looking for a reason to do this and it might work in the fluff. Y chromosome? Yep. Identifies as female? Check. Techically, that would make them female Space Marines, or you are invalidating the entire Trans community. You could even run them as The Rainbow Warriors just to make sure you have everything covered.
Past that, the part where someone told you about the Slayers. Same thing applies as far as that goes. You either need to accept the background as it is, or find wiggle room, like I gave you in the last paragraph.
That would make for a cool army i wont refute that, but that would be creating something else and not the female space marines as was the discussion. if someone would run these with only male or female models, well, they can do what they like the important part is that the option is presented both in official models and official lore.
Just saying its what the developer wanted is an extremely lazy way to dismiss a discussion, its what happened in video games for a long time now with a recent example being quiet in metal gear solid 5. just because the developers/writers wanted it that way doesnt give it a free pass or that everyone has to like their decision. by extension it also means that you cant criticise anything from 40k background regardless of who made it because, its what the writer wanted.
It does NOT give it a free pass, that is for sure. If you don't like it, don't spend money on it, don't follow it, don't support it. This whole 50/50 21st century gender/sex ratio applied to stuff that it doesn't apply to is everywhere right now. I collect Transformers, you should hear the push for human integration in a toyline based on giant robots from another planet who don't have sexual reproduction and wouldn't have any sort of need for gender or sex. Seems GW games aren't safe from this sort of pressure either. Wait, is that why Tomb Kings were cancelled? Not enough skeletons with clear female markers on them?
Just Tony wrote: Boneville, I'm not going to quote your copious walls of text, I'm just going to sum up a few points.
You feel that the fluff should be rewritten to make every faction co-ed as to allow an even mix of female models in every army, correct? Wouldn't that basically render the differences thematically and aesthetically between SOB and SM obsolete?
If so, how would you feel if they got the license and permission to start a Drac army in 40K? They are explicitly asexual, reproducing without binary reproduction, and have no sexes OR gender roles. Would that need to be rewritten to cater to your wants? Would you basically say everything Larry B. Longyear wrote in the fiction of his creation?
I'll wait til you get back to me on that.
More or less correct, i wouldnt say every army because there are exceptions. Tyranids is one where i dont feel that gender plays a role at all for example. For necrons there are regalias of queens like cleopatra that could make good models. But yes, the human factions i feel hasnt done enough with their gender limitations to warrant it wich is why i feel it should be changed.
I dont see a problem with the overlapping of the two factions as one is drawn from super soldiers genetically enhanced etc and addinmg space marines wouldnt necessarily mean that all current space marines get genderswapped but would allow for female space marine chapters and mixed ones of course, the other faction can then explore the religious themes of the ecclisiarchy, so i dont see the thematic and aesthetic overlap.
from my research on the drac, they seem to be written explicitly to be alien. i dont see how they would be rewritten considering the point was to be inhuman and alien to us. Much like the tyranids and daemons (although i have huge problems with slaanesh, and their "supposed" androgenous appereance) but more of a "mirror" being. The point has always been that the space marines always has been linked too humanity so they dont have that "pass".
Had the space marines been introduced as a separate hemaphroditic alien faction i wouldnt have a problem.
So an army of entirely male Amazons as someone makes the models able to be 50/50 ratios means someone will inevitably run nothing but one sex. We're not going to throw gender into it, since ANY model can identify as a gender different than their sex. Actually, that might be the best out for you, since you're looking for a reason to do this and it might work in the fluff. Y chromosome? Yep. Identifies as female? Check. Techically, that would make them female Space Marines, or you are invalidating the entire Trans community. You could even run them as The Rainbow Warriors just to make sure you have everything covered.
Past that, the part where someone told you about the Slayers. Same thing applies as far as that goes. You either need to accept the background as it is, or find wiggle room, like I gave you in the last paragraph.
That would make for a cool army i wont refute that, but that would be creating something else and not the female space marines as was the discussion. if someone would run these with only male or female models, well, they can do what they like the important part is that the option is presented both in official models and official lore.
Just saying its what the developer wanted is an extremely lazy way to dismiss a discussion, its what happened in video games for a long time now with a recent example being quiet in metal gear solid 5. just because the developers/writers wanted it that way doesnt give it a free pass or that everyone has to like their decision. by extension it also means that you cant criticise anything from 40k background regardless of who made it because, its what the writer wanted.
It does NOT give it a free pass, that is for sure. If you don't like it, don't spend money on it, don't follow it, don't support it. This whole 50/50 21st century gender/sex ratio applied to stuff that it doesn't apply to is everywhere right now. I collect Transformers, you should hear the push for human integration in a toyline based on giant robots from another planet who don't have sexual reproduction and wouldn't have any sort of need for gender or sex. Seems GW games aren't safe from this sort of pressure either. Wait, is that why Tomb Kings were cancelled? Not enough skeletons with clear female markers on them?
Maybe that pressure is everywhere because it is important and dont uphold to modern standards. If the robots didnt have gender why are they referred to in male pronouns with male voices, when as you said it shouldnt matter and they could have female voices instead.
Yeah, except in very explicit cases where in fiction they are specifically defined as genderless. Gobots did it right in that regard. What do female TFs look like? Roboboobs. What do female minis look like in 40K? Boob armor. Be careful what you wish for, I guess.
We're getting off topic with this, but the main issue is there is other fiction that you can get behind, other games that are integrated that you can play. You want to change it in 40K? Stop buying it, that's the only thing they understand. Well, until you realize how small of a group is fighting for this and that the blip of nonpurchases won't even be noticeable.
Mrs. Esterhouse wrote:Respect for intellectual property. You either have it or you don't.
You can still be respectful even if you disagree. I can respect an opinion but still think its wrong.
Just Tony wrote:Yeah, except in very explicit cases where in fiction they are specifically defined as genderless. Gobots did it right in that regard. What do female TFs look like? Roboboobs. What do female minis look like in 40K? Boob armor. Be careful what you wish for, I guess.
We're getting off topic with this, but the main issue is there is other fiction that you can get behind, other games that are integrated that you can play. You want to change it in 40K? Stop buying it, that's the only thing they understand. Well, until you realize how small of a group is fighting for this and that the blip of nonpurchases won't even be noticeable.
Female models do not have to be only boobs, it might be hard to do but not impossible.
We are disussing this game, the fact that other games exist has nothing to do with that.
Matthew wrote: Let's recap: There is 1 male only faction and 1 femal eonly faction. The rest are agender or mixed. What's the problem again?
They sort of have a "want their cake and eat it too" situation. So they want to change the male only faction (space marines) to be mixed gender while maintaining the female only faction of sisters of battle as it is.
Matthew wrote: Let's recap: There is 1 male only faction and 1 femal eonly faction. The rest are agender or mixed. What's the problem again?
Let's look at it. I just checked the GW website.
Male/Masculine only:
Space Wolves Dark Angels Blood Angels Deathwatch Space Marines (Technically all the SM factions are Space Marines, but each one individually gets more support than the SoB do so they definitely count) Astra Militarum Militarum Tempestus Cult Mechanicus (This one and Skitarii could be in mixed because it is often hard to tell their gender, but whenever I take a close look at their body shape it seems masculine and the models are referred to as 'he' on their website etc so I'll slap occam's razor on this one) Skitarii Inquisition Chaos Space Marines Khorne Daemonkin Necrons (The one that bothers me the least. They are obviously masculine skeletons, and feminine ones only exist in the background, but they are still skeletons).
Mixed factions: Eldar (Howling Banshees. The rest are all male models) Dark Eldar (These are more mixed than I remember. I guess I should expect that from the lightly dressed space elves) Harlequins (one of the models in the basic troop box; the rest are male) Chaos Daemons (A dubious case since all models are either masculine or androgynous) Tau (They have Shadowsun, I guess, and that one Ghostkeel pilot)
Matthew wrote: Let's recap: There is 1 male only faction and 1 femal eonly faction. The rest are agender or mixed. What's the problem again?
They sort of have a "want their cake and eat it too" situation. So they want to change the male only faction (space marines) to be mixed gender while maintaining the female only faction of sisters of battle as it is.
I'd be fine with SoB squatted (it feels like it is going that way at this point) if it meant more representation elsewhere. In fact, proper representation among IG (And non-token Eldar, pretty please?) would be enough for me. SM do not bother me too much personally though I can certainly see why they can get tiresome for others.
If I'm not mistaken, this is posted in the Background forums, right?
Astra Militarum are in the background unisex, same with Tempestus. Skitarii and Mechanicum are both unisex, same with inquisition. And skeletons don't really show genders? Also, you can't say Daemons are male...
Automatically Appended Next Post: And jesus christ, there are lots of female heads in the Eldar Guardian box! Almost half the Deldar models are female!
You're also placing human female traits on everything as a standard, even if you're looking at a biped, which is the only tie to humanity. Look at the animal kingdom, and how many male/female of the species are visibly different without looking at their genitalia? The problem is some people can't back up enough to take themselves out of their view.
Just Tony wrote: You're also placing human female traits on everything as a standard, even if you're looking at a biped, which is the only tie to humanity. Look at the animal kingdom, and how many male/female of the species are visibly different without looking at their genitalia? The problem is some people can't back up enough to take themselves out of their view.
We have also been shown various men and women of other factions. For example the eldar we know how women look like compared to men. Biggest difference beaing one has breasts the other has not. Then another thing is that almost all the factions in 40k is based on a human body structure, with little effort to really differentiate them in the way you describe between their genders.
More likely is that they are still so "human" that the real differences are miniscule.
I'm not seeing how any of these are male nor female.
In the middle rank, the one to the far left and the far right has really big breasts.
Which is kind of bad designwise but I suppose it is better than no representation at all (imagine having 'male space marines' look like normal ones except they have gargantuan pecs sculpted onto their breastplate).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Boneville wrote: Then another thing is that almost all the factions in 40k is based on a human body structure, with little effort to really differentiate them in the way you describe between their genders.
In the specific case of Eldar, the men also tend to have masculine facial structures (see the Guardian models).
We are used to extremely exaggerated man-hulks like Marines so the difference seems minor, but it is very clearly there.
Personally I have little problem with females who cannot be visibly discerned as such. The conception that any Fire Warrior can be either gender is fine to me, I prefer it to boob-plated Fire Warriors, though I would agree that an exposed Female and Male commander head would then be preferable.
But if there were Female Space Marines then, yes, I'd want them to largely be indiscernible from the Males in armour. The Characters and Leaders would, like many Marine ones, be discernible due to their tendency to not wear helmets.
I see no reason why the inability to tell a Male Marine apart from a Female Marine would be an argument against their existence.
Additionally saying that it all boils down to 'respect' for 'intellectual property' is ridiculous since that argument instantly negates the capacity for the critique of anything. If 'respect' for 'intellectual property' simply means accept anything created exactly as is then a great wealth of all discussions which have occurred on this site are excluded.
Mrs. Esterhouse wrote: By all means feel free to critique it. But trying to force your narrative into something created by another is not respecting intellectual property.
Wouldnt the way youy word that mean that you cant make any fanfiction about anything as your forcing narrative?
Mrs. Esterhouse wrote: By all means feel free to critique it. But trying to force your narrative into something created by another is not respecting intellectual property.
Behold, in the grim dark future a single light of logic.
Well at the very least fanfiction is an acknowledgement of being separate and non-canon from the source material. So it's not really forcing your own narrative since it's not being published or seen as fact. It can be easily dismissed by both the creators and fans and has significantly less impact.
Mrs. Esterhouse wrote: By all means feel free to critique it. But trying to force your narrative into something created by another is not respecting intellectual property.
Behold, in the grim dark future a single light of logic.
Grimskul wrote: Well at the very least fanfiction is an acknowledgement of being separate and non-canon from the source material. So it's not really forcing your own narrative since it's not being published or seen as fact. It can be easily dismissed by both the creators and fans and has significantly less impact.
As opposed to the suggestions of individual Dakka posters?
There's some good fan fiction out there. And the thing is, 40K sort of invites you to write your own fan fiction. At least it used to. A lot more than it does now, I think. So it's not shocking that this conversation comes up. What do people do when they write/create fan fiction? They like to insert themselves into their little slice of the fluff.
And like I've said, I don't mind at all if people have female space marines. It's your 40K.
I do think that more female characters in the armies that are unisex wouldn't be a bad thing. Hell, it would be a good thing. There are plenty of dudes that would love to see more women characters, especially for their Imperium armies.
Wouldn't this line of reasoning mean nothing is permissible but repetition of existing canonical facts? And that no original armies may exist or be created only use of explicitly canonical armies?
Yeah, if that's your definition of 'respect for intellectual property' then I do not share it.
Lusall wrote: There's some good fan fiction out there. And the thing is, 40K sort of invites you to write your own fan fiction. At least it used to. A lot more than it does now, I think. So it's not shocking that this conversation comes up. What do people do when they write/create fan fiction? They like to insert themselves into their little slice of the fluff.
And like I've said, I don't mind at all if people have female space marines. It's your 40K.
I do think that more female characters in the armies that are unisex wouldn't be a bad thing. Hell, it would be a good thing. There are plenty of dudes that would love to see more women characters, especially for their Imperium armies.
I always like good stories, do you know where one can find fan fiction? Is there a community hub or are they scattered throughout different sites?
That's not my definition of respect for intellectual property. The creators of 40k have always said it's "your game" and it's "your dudes". I'm just a player and a fan. I have no right to tell you what you can or can't do with 40k.
The original creator of 40k wrote it so only men can become space marines. For whatever reason that is how he envisioned his creation in his universe that he created. Not liking it is fine. Wanting to change it officially to better fit your narrative is not fine. This is what my definition of respect for intellectual property is. Respecting the artistic creation of another and not hijacking it.
Just Tony wrote: But if you ARE taking away the main difference between them, sex
It is not the main difference between them.
Just Tony wrote: then you are left with two mixed gender power armor armies with bolters, Rhinos, and the like.
Did that ever stop GW from making marines codices for all the colors of the rainbow and then some more, and fans from buying those?
Just Tony wrote: You basically guarantee nobody would touch Sisters with a ten foot pole in that case, as they'd simply be cheaper worse Marines at that point. Currently the ONLY draw Sisters have is their background as a mainly female army, which is easily run as a completely female army by not running any of the available male models from the Codex. As a Sisters fan, I figured you above anyone else would understand that, but then I see your sig and realize that's not the case...
As a Sisters fan I can guarantee that you are wrong, that I would still be drawn to them nonetheless and that being all female is definitely NOT the only draw they have. But you can just ignore facts I guess.
Grimskul wrote: So they want to change the male only faction (space marines) to be mixed gender while maintaining the female only faction of sisters of battle as it is.
Nah. We said we were fine with Dark Angels staying male only. It's fine, one male-only faction and one female-only faction. See, it's you who hate equality and want double standard, or whatever you accuse us of.
Mrs. Esterhouse wrote: But trying to force your narrative into something created by another is not respecting intellectual property.
“Force your narrative” sounds like empty buzzword to me.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I have explained my stance on Female Space Marines. I do not think they are necessary, because there is a fluff explanation as to why they cannot exist, and I do not see a problem with the limitation, as it runs parallel to the inverse restriction on gender with the Sisters of Battle. I accept the fluff, as there is no reason for me to question it over any other piece of fluff, such as "Why are orks green?" or "Why does a lasgun look like that?" or "Why does the Warp exist?" There is no neglected gender fluff wise, but I can completely agree that representation of women in the factions they should be represented in is shockingly neglectful..
Actually you have referred to a fluff piece that states that women cant be space marines. So i ask you: what would change or break for the space marines if GW tomorrow changes the passage and introduces female space marines? What change is so horrible that the passage cant be changed?
Firstly, I have no idea what that first sentence referred to.
Secondly, I think the more important thing, which is more accepted in debates like this, is why should be changed in the first place? I shouldn't have to justify that which already exists.
Prove to me that it should be changed, and then I can contest. However, I won't just respond to a "But why not" without a reason.
The point of the question was that for someone who is very adamant to not include female space marine, you havent actually elaborated on why such a change would be bad for the faction. you have said that fluff says no, asked what gender means to sisters, but when asked with the same question you refuse to give an answer as to what in the space marines as a faction limits this.
I have my own theory: because you lose nothing. nothing in the space marines description (other than prefixes) or themes of different chapters actually stop working because female space marines are added to them. Or can you prove me wrong?
Adding female Space Marines is as "bad" as adding Male Sisters of Battle. To me, it is the same scenario. If Sisters of Battle did not exist, I would push for mixed gender Space Marines.
So, with that knowledge, why should it be changed?
I say you lose the sense of hopelessness in the Imperium, and the cost of gene-seed. Hopelessness in that they cannot use a full 50% of their potential applicants due to gender, and the cost of gene-seed being that great power, but 50% of the population cannot accept it.
Does everything have to be integral to the "faction identity"? One could ask why are orks predominantly green under the same idea. It's just a trait of Space Marines, like how they wear power armour, and are genetically engineered - a side effect of the genetic enhancement being that it cannot work on women.
Yes, otherwise all factions become space marines if there are nothing that separates them, in the case of the identity of space marines no chapter uses their male gender too such an extent that it is necessary to make such a statement and could just be a later addition to justify it. After all if we cant critizise it- how can we change it?
I actually have no idea what you just said. Could you re-iterate?
My point was that if gender is such a big deal then why doesnt it come up more often. it just seems like space marines are genetically enhanced super soldiers in power armour with a variety of weapons following the codex astartes. if gender was such a big deal that they just have to be male, why isnt that more pronounced?
If being green was such a big deal, why doesn't it come up more for Orks?
However, the genetically enhanced trait is the price the Imperium pay for losing half their potential Space Marines. They're pragmatic at heart, instead of pumping out Space-Marines-lite of mixed gender, they give them enhancements instead for the tactical flexibility.
So, if there was more female representation in the rest of 40k, which I do support wholeheartedly, would you still push for female Astartes?
Space Marines are not an army for representation, because no-one is a 7 foot tall genetically altered killing machine, regardless of your gender.
The point is that it is a power fantasy, something you want to be. Space Marines are made super badass and strong so people can go "I wanna be a super soldier", for this reason they are male because men made the universe and men want to be super men.That fantasy is represented, butr it wasnt written with what women wanted to see.
Yes, i would still be pushing for female space marines. But with a slightly shifted angle, because i see no reason why women cant have a similar power fantasy directed at them.
Okay, read these words - I do not want to be a Space Marine devoid of compassion for anything barring the slaughter of the enemies of my state.
I cannot believe that ALL men want that fantasy. You cannot categorise all men want to be super men and have power fantasies, because it is patently incorrect.
Women have just as much of a power fantasy opportunity directed at them - they're called the Sisters of Battle. They wear massive, hulking power armour, making them massively durable, carry the same weapons as the Space Marine, making them strong, and have even more of a thing for fire and purging righteously than Astartes. In fact, the ONLY real difference between the two, barring gender, is that the Sisters face the same threats WITHOUT genetic enhancements - which makes them EVEN MORE badass. They're as close to a Space Marine as a human can get without the Black Carapace.
Women have the option for power fantasy.
They do not have the option to be genetically enhanced by gene-seed. But they CAN be genetically enhanced via the Assassinorum. So really, what is it they're lacking?
Wich is probably if you play space marines you look for the chapter with less of that angle and more of others you do want. just because you cannot believe that it began as power fantasy doesnt make it less so, and i was reffering to the creators of space marines not all players. i should have made that clearer, my bad.
I cant compare space marines and sisters. sisters are never portrayed as equal to space marines thus they cannot be each others counterpart. sisters power armour is not as bulky and looks like a corset and comes with high heels. atleast on the early codex cover if i recall correctly. They are nothing alike. The space marines come in different varieties of fanatical, sisters are always fanatical.
as long as the sisters are tied to the church they will always be fanatical in one way and they will never be genetically enhanced like space marines so they can never be super soldiers in the same way.
Sisters are portrayed just as well as Space Marines - just less often (in which I would support there being more Sisters depictions). They fight alongside Salamanders in the creation of the Land Raider Redeemer, just as well as their Astartes comrades, lead a solo assault on a daemon world (which is a Grey Knight tier feat), and hold off the Imperial palace from vastly more Astartes forces during the Reign of Blood. They're no less badass.
Space Marines have more exposure. I do not support that. I would support SoB exposure. With enough exposure, SoB could easily have varying levels of faith and methods of battle (certain orders being more defensive, and others favouring rapid closure to targets to burn them up close). There are still more similarities between Space Marines (and variants) and Sisters than anywhere else:
Power armour as their signature armour
Bolter as signature weapon
Seen as holy/unholy figures of their deity, and in some cases, actually protected by.
Use of the Rhino and variants
A penchant for purging and burning
Fanatically loyal in some way, either to the Imperium, Emperor, Primarch, Chaos God, etc
Mono-gender
Are you saying Sisters of Battle need genetic enhancements to make them badass? I don't agree with that statement? Not to mention that if Sisters can fight off threats the same as Astartes, WITHOUT implants, that makes them a hell of alot more respectable.
A lot more stories could be opened up if Orks could be Space Marines. Like Space Wolf terminators being modelled like Siege Trolls. Or if Tyranids could be Space Marines, because then we can have a Tyranid-ified Thunderwolf Cerberus.
Does this mean we can have Ork and Tyranid Space Marines?
Of course. But then you would have to make another thread to discuss it in.
But really - how different is that to your previous point?
I always answered the question at hand wich was about female space marines. What you tried to spin it as was not that.
You did? I'm afraid I missed it - how different is the idea of Ork Marines from Female Marines from a modelling opportunities point?
But why is this part of the background so malleable?
Because of the many problems i have with the implications of such a statement.
Which are?
I already stated them very clearly as the thread went on.
Which I also refuted.
No, I'm saying applying reasoning from our logic and world is not a background discussion, especially when one is trying to change the background for real world reasons instead of in-universe ones.
I am putting forth arguments as to why i think you should change the background, the discussion is still firmly about the background.
Using real world examples and reasoning.
In-universe, there is nothing wrong with Space Marines being all male.
But that doesnt change the fact that it is about the background.
I think this is a cyclical argument. I would be more than happy if this point were dropped, as it won't be resolved.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, if in-universe doesn't count, why the double standard on the Decree Passive and the Creation of a Space Marine article?
Because of the relevant differences between those are out of universe, of course.
But I'm talking about in-universe validity, of which both are. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it less valid as canon.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Allow me to reiterate it.
Without real life concerns and reasons of our world, such as representation of groups, why should Space Marine lore change?
Without reasons of our world, it's pretty hard to tell, because since the 40k world doesn't actually exists, well…
everything, I mean everything in 40k happens because of real life reasons. Everything. Like for instance “Some GW writer wants to make a story that's compelling to read of real-life” or “GW wants to sell miniatures in real life”…
Okay, I am rather sure you're attempting to avoid the actual question. I would rather prefer if you indulged me and actually answered my question, instead of bringing real life in. I am not debating real life. I am debating the validity of canon in a fictional universe. If you'd rather not do that, I don't think our arguments will get anywhere on eachother, with the greatest respect.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Funny, but I don't see any of the latter part of your response in there.
Yeah, apparently you didn't quote the right part. I may get access to my codex this week-end, if so I'll post the relevant quotes.
I await eagerly, but in my looking, I couldn't find anything supporting that. However, I wouldn't deny the evidence if I saw it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There are two mono-gender factions, both opposing, and if Space Marine saturation was reduced and the Sisters getting more love and time, what would be the problem?
And what if the sun turned into an ice-cream too? We will never see the Sisters developed nearly as much as the marines. It is even worth mentioning how some codex (can't remember which one, maybe it's rather the WD article that got all the nice fluff in it) don't have much deviation between orders, while marines have a HUGE diversity among chapters, which means marines will always get more variety than Sisters…
Rather defeatist, isn't it?
I'm requesting more Sisters exposure, and you're advocating practically giving up on the Sisters (flying in the face of their "essential and logical place in 40k canon" - not an exact quote) and just changing the Space Marines instead, regardless of their lore which opposes it.
Seriously, just adding more female models and increasing Sisters exposure and variety would be easier for GW.
Ashiraya wrote:
Matthew wrote: Let's recap: There is 1 male only faction and 1 femal eonly faction. The rest are agender or mixed. What's the problem again?
Let's look at it. I just checked the GW website.
Male/Masculine only:
Space Wolves
Dark Angels
Blood Angels
Deathwatch
Space Marines (Technically all the SM factions are Space Marines, but each one individually gets more support than the SoB do so they definitely count)
Astra Militarum
Militarum Tempestus
Cult Mechanicus (This one and Skitarii could be in mixed because it is often hard to tell their gender, but whenever I take a close look at their body shape it seems masculine and the models are referred to as 'he' on their website etc so I'll slap occam's razor on this one)
Skitarii
Inquisition
Chaos Space Marines
Khorne Daemonkin
Necrons (The one that bothers me the least. They are obviously masculine skeletons, and feminine ones only exist in the background, but they are still skeletons).
Mixed factions:
Eldar (Howling Banshees. The rest are all male models)
Dark Eldar (These are more mixed than I remember. I guess I should expect that from the lightly dressed space elves)
Harlequins (one of the models in the basic troop box; the rest are male)
Chaos Daemons (A dubious case since all models are either masculine or androgynous)
Tau (They have Shadowsun, I guess, and that one Ghostkeel pilot)
N/A:
Tyranids
Imperial Knights
Somewhat agreed, but I wouldn't class Astra Militarum, Tempestus Militarum, Inquisition, Necrons, Skitarii or Admech as male only, at least not in fluff. There are plenty of fluff reasons why mixed genders can be in these factions, and I wouldn't call Necrons, Skitarii or Admech male because they are just forms - Necrons are literally skeletons, and there's nothing that would imply that female Necrons have a different body to male ones.
Space Marines I would class as one faction, seeing as their only real difference is cosmetic. I don't think the difference in Space Marines, maybe barring the loyalist/traitor divide, is enough to warrant separate status.
If this is about models, then you're absolutely right, and I will state again - I fully support the inclusion of more females into the armies that have a fluff reason to have women.
Matthew wrote: Let's recap: There is 1 male only faction and 1 femal eonly faction. The rest are agender or mixed. What's the problem again?
They sort of have a "want their cake and eat it too" situation. So they want to change the male only faction (space marines) to be mixed gender while maintaining the female only faction of sisters of battle as it is.
I'd be fine with SoB squatted (it feels like it is going that way at this point) if it meant more representation elsewhere. In fact, proper representation among IG (And non-token Eldar, pretty please?) would be enough for me. SM do not bother me too much personally though I can certainly see why they can get tiresome for others.
Generally this.
Anemone wrote:Personally I have little problem with females who cannot be visibly discerned as such. The conception that any Fire Warrior can be either gender is fine to me, I prefer it to boob-plated Fire Warriors, though I would agree that an exposed Female and Male commander head would then be preferable.
Generally agreed with, but considering many Tau commanders don't expose their heads (assuming you mean Battlesuit commanders), there wouldn't even be a need for the heads.
Additionally saying that it all boils down to 'respect' for 'intellectual property' is ridiculous since that argument instantly negates the capacity for the critique of anything. If 'respect' for 'intellectual property' simply means accept anything created exactly as is then a great wealth of all discussions which have occurred on this site are excluded.
I think critique using in-universe reasons to better clarify or confirm in-universe traits is generally okay, but I am hesitant to change canon things for IRL reasons.
Lusall wrote: There's some good fan fiction out there. And the thing is, 40K sort of invites you to write your own fan fiction. At least it used to. A lot more than it does now, I think. So it's not shocking that this conversation comes up. What do people do when they write/create fan fiction? They like to insert themselves into their little slice of the fluff.
And like I've said, I don't mind at all if people have female space marines. It's your 40K.
I do think that more female characters in the armies that are unisex wouldn't be a bad thing. Hell, it would be a good thing. There are plenty of dudes that would love to see more women characters, especially for their Imperium armies.
I always like good stories, do you know where one can find fan fiction? Is there a community hub or are they scattered throughout different sites?
1d4chan has some, but they tend to be a bit NSFW or lulz-worthy.
Dakka Fiction has some good material on it.
Insert shameless plug on the links in my sig but don't feel obliged to because they're nothing compared to some other works in there, notably Dark Lord Seanron's Death of the Emperor I'm sorry I'll stop
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But I'm talking about in-universe validity, of which both are.
Yeah they are both “valid”. I just think one is part of an interesting lore and the other is not. Hence there is one that I think would require a lot of effort to salvage said lore if it was retconned, and the other can be retconed easily without too much fuss.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Okay, I am rather sure you're attempting to avoid the actual question.
No I just don't understand it. Trust me it is not clear.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Seriously, just adding more female models and increasing Sisters exposure and variety would be easier for GW.
With 10 space marines codex and billions of marine models already released? I care to disagree with that easier statement. Especially since canonically Sisters are one of the most uniform and homogeneous factions.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But I'm talking about in-universe validity, of which both are.
Yeah they are both “valid”. I just think one is part of an interesting lore and the other is not. Hence there is one that I think would require a lot of effort to salvage said lore if it was retconned, and the other can be retconed easily without too much fuss.
Emphasis on "think". Which is fine. I just disagree, but that's just me.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Okay, I am rather sure you're attempting to avoid the actual question.
No I just don't understand it. Trust me it is not clear.
Many apologies - I've tried as best as I can to ask the question I want, but if it's not coming out right, so be it. I can try and express it again, or we can just let it go.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Seriously, just adding more female models and increasing Sisters exposure and variety would be easier for GW.
With 10 space marines codex and billions of marine models already released? I care to disagree with that easier statement. Especially since canonically Sisters are one of the most uniform and homogeneous factions.
But the Ecclesiarchy shows plenty of variety in it's organisation - from clearing new pastures for the God-Emperor, to defending Shrine Worlds, to enlightening reunited human colonies, etc etc. Sisters could easily be expanded without the removal of any entrenched lore, which would go hand in hand with a new wave of miniatures.
Regarding the Space Marine codexes, I've made my point clear repeatedly.
Yes, Smudge, that was me just looking at the models. I am aware there is more diversity in the lore, but it feels like that diversity is something GW is trying to hide, or perhaps simply not paying any heed.
So, one way female space marines could be implemented without changing existing lore, would be to say at one point the Emperor secretly did marry. And this Empress was as powerful as he was and at some point she was put on an unknown planet where she is protected by space marines made up of her genetic material. Say it was the most guarded secret of the emperor and they are just now spreading through the galaxy.
I'm fairly new to 40k and don't know a lot of the existing lore so I'm not sure if this is feasible or not but I dislike retcons and would rather see something like this used. Especially if it would please fellow fans of the game.
Grimskul wrote: Well at the very least fanfiction is an acknowledgement of being separate and non-canon from the source material. So it's not really forcing your own narrative since it's not being published or seen as fact. It can be easily dismissed by both the creators and fans and has significantly less impact.
As opposed to the suggestions of individual Dakka posters?
I'm not against an individual user's own take on the fluff. I may disagree and point out certain conflicts with fluff but at the end of the day it's a fictional world and you can go for whatever your interested. There'll always be people who want to push the limits and try out non-canon things like Chaos Grey Knights, Alpha Plus Psyker Necrons or super populous Craftworld Eldar which players will know are home-brewed. However, advocating changing a faction's core fluff for the sake of one's own idea of "proper representation" is overkill in my opinion. It's similar to how comics are trying to appeal to the LGBT community but execute it poorly by simply placing racial/sexual minorities in the positions of heroes that are already established rather than taking chances and crafting a well-developed original superhero where their sexuality/race is part of but not their only defining trait. There's some exceptions to this (Falcon replacing Cap, etc.) but I feel that doing this is the same thing since there's no precedent nor any solid reason to change something tied to their origins. I know that this doesn't apply to your stance since you've made your point quite clear and honestly I agree with you that the best way to deal with this is just increasing the representation from current mixed gender factions for females rather than unnecessarily changing the factions that are decidedly one sex.
Just Tony wrote: then you are left with two mixed gender power armor armies with bolters, Rhinos, and the like.
Did that ever stop GW from making marines codices for all the colors of the rainbow and then some more, and fans from buying those?
No, it didn't. Quite a few people lambast GW for doing EXACTLY that, but that is neither here nor there. The difference is that there are enough Marine players to squeeze for those books. The models are the same with a few exceptions between chapters, so it all comes down to the background behind the chapter. I'm fine with background, but I don't think every damn chapter needs its own special snowflake rules. We at least agree on that. Also, if people were actually buying the SOB codices and model kits, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Just Tony wrote: You basically guarantee nobody would touch Sisters with a ten foot pole in that case, as they'd simply be cheaper worse Marines at that point. Currently the ONLY draw Sisters have is their background as a mainly female army, which is easily run as a completely female army by not running any of the available male models from the Codex. As a Sisters fan, I figured you above anyone else would understand that, but then I see your sig and realize that's not the case...
As a Sisters fan I can guarantee that you are wrong, that I would still be drawn to them nonetheless and that being all female is definitely NOT the only draw they have. But you can just ignore facts I guess.
As stated before, Sisters of Battle are essentially Black Templars. If you didn't have the sex of the models as an issue, you'd basically have a Neophyte army in power armor and Black Templars proper, yet they can't mix. So you could run an entire army of weaker Templars with worse rules, or you could just run Templars. THAT is my point. So show me the "facts" that disprove this.
Grimskul wrote: So they want to change the male only faction (space marines) to be mixed gender while maintaining the female only faction of sisters of battle as it is.
Nah. We said we were fine with Dark Angels staying male only. It's fine, one male-only faction and one female-only faction. See, it's you who hate equality and want double standard, or whatever you accuse us of.
Cool, we can swing that. While we're at it, only the Sisters of the Penitent Rose can be all female. Equality and all. Wouldn't want double standards.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I have explained my stance on Female Space Marines. I do not think they are necessary, because there is a fluff explanation as to why they cannot exist, and I do not see a problem with the limitation, as it runs parallel to the inverse restriction on gender with the Sisters of Battle. I accept the fluff, as there is no reason for me to question it over any other piece of fluff, such as "Why are orks green?" or "Why does a lasgun look like that?" or "Why does the Warp exist?" There is no neglected gender fluff wise, but I can completely agree that representation of women in the factions they should be represented in is shockingly neglectful..
Actually you have referred to a fluff piece that states that women cant be space marines. So i ask you: what would change or break for the space marines if GW tomorrow changes the passage and introduces female space marines? What change is so horrible that the passage cant be changed?
Firstly, I have no idea what that first sentence referred to.
Secondly, I think the more important thing, which is more accepted in debates like this, is why should be changed in the first place? I shouldn't have to justify that which already exists. Prove to me that it should be changed, and then I can contest. However, I won't just respond to a "But why not" without a reason.
The point of the question was that for someone who is very adamant to not include female space marine, you havent actually elaborated on why such a change would be bad for the faction. you have said that fluff says no, asked what gender means to sisters, but when asked with the same question you refuse to give an answer as to what in the space marines as a faction limits this.
I have my own theory: because you lose nothing. nothing in the space marines description (other than prefixes) or themes of different chapters actually stop working because female space marines are added to them. Or can you prove me wrong?
Adding female Space Marines is as "bad" as adding Male Sisters of Battle. To me, it is the same scenario. If Sisters of Battle did not exist, I would push for mixed gender Space Marines.
So, with that knowledge, why should it be changed?
I say you lose the sense of hopelessness in the Imperium, and the cost of gene-seed. Hopelessness in that they cannot use a full 50% of their potential applicants due to gender, and the cost of gene-seed being that great power, but 50% of the population cannot accept it.
I will say that you have a good reason to believe that, it is a good explanation of the themes present. But i have to say that in my opinion the hopelessness and desperation of the imperium can be conveyed without locking down the faction to one gender.
I would explain it by having the geneseed be deadly if youre not compatible, meaning 50% of the people that gets chosen die when the gene seed is adminestrated. it would then go in line with the imperium using it despite the risk because the cost is deemed acceptable. Then i add the fact that gene seed is deemed a holy relic from the golden age and cant be tampered with despite the fact that they cant "fix" the mortality rate because they cant use it that way and by decree only the space marines themselves can choose who gets to initiate this transformation, wich they do because of honour, martial skill etc and not actually if they are safe from the gene seed killing them.
I think this shows that the imperium is desperate for survival but still hold the past to such a high degree that they arent willing to progress forward.
Because to me at the end of the day female space marines is a best case scenario and i dont really care all that much if i never see them even though i will defend my opinion and said oipinion is entrenched in the idea of representation and equality. What i meant by the in-universe explanations was that i wanted you to give me the sort of explanation that you just gave me. i now understand why you think it is important for the faction to be male only.
And i must confess that i might have kept the discussion going just to see if i can get this sort of answer.
Lusall wrote: There's some good fan fiction out there. And the thing is, 40K sort of invites you to write your own fan fiction. At least it used to. A lot more than it does now, I think. So it's not shocking that this conversation comes up. What do people do when they write/create fan fiction? They like to insert themselves into their little slice of the fluff.
And like I've said, I don't mind at all if people have female space marines. It's your 40K.
I do think that more female characters in the armies that are unisex wouldn't be a bad thing. Hell, it would be a good thing. There are plenty of dudes that would love to see more women characters, especially for their Imperium armies.
I always like good stories, do you know where one can find fan fiction? Is there a community hub or are they scattered throughout different sites?
1d4chan has some, but they tend to be a bit NSFW or lulz-worthy. Dakka Fiction has some good material on it.
Insert shameless plug on the links in my sig but don't feel obliged to because they're nothing compared to some other works in there, notably Dark Lord Seanron's Death of the Emperor I'm sorry I'll stop
Ashiraya wrote:Yes, Smudge, that was me just looking at the models. I am aware there is more diversity in the lore, but it feels like that diversity is something GW is trying to hide, or perhaps simply not paying any heed.
Ah, I see. Yes, I'd agree that GW should promote more diversity in the factions that can already receive it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I have explained my stance on Female Space Marines. I do not think they are necessary, because there is a fluff explanation as to why they cannot exist, and I do not see a problem with the limitation, as it runs parallel to the inverse restriction on gender with the Sisters of Battle. I accept the fluff, as there is no reason for me to question it over any other piece of fluff, such as "Why are orks green?" or "Why does a lasgun look like that?" or "Why does the Warp exist?" There is no neglected gender fluff wise, but I can completely agree that representation of women in the factions they should be represented in is shockingly neglectful..
Actually you have referred to a fluff piece that states that women cant be space marines. So i ask you: what would change or break for the space marines if GW tomorrow changes the passage and introduces female space marines? What change is so horrible that the passage cant be changed?
Firstly, I have no idea what that first sentence referred to.
Secondly, I think the more important thing, which is more accepted in debates like this, is why should be changed in the first place? I shouldn't have to justify that which already exists.
Prove to me that it should be changed, and then I can contest. However, I won't just respond to a "But why not" without a reason.
The point of the question was that for someone who is very adamant to not include female space marine, you havent actually elaborated on why such a change would be bad for the faction. you have said that fluff says no, asked what gender means to sisters, but when asked with the same question you refuse to give an answer as to what in the space marines as a faction limits this.
I have my own theory: because you lose nothing. nothing in the space marines description (other than prefixes) or themes of different chapters actually stop working because female space marines are added to them. Or can you prove me wrong?
Adding female Space Marines is as "bad" as adding Male Sisters of Battle. To me, it is the same scenario. If Sisters of Battle did not exist, I would push for mixed gender Space Marines.
So, with that knowledge, why should it be changed?
I say you lose the sense of hopelessness in the Imperium, and the cost of gene-seed. Hopelessness in that they cannot use a full 50% of their potential applicants due to gender, and the cost of gene-seed being that great power, but 50% of the population cannot accept it.
I will say that you have a good reason to believe that, it is a good explanation of the themes present. But i have to say that in my opinion the hopelessness and desperation of the imperium can be conveyed without locking down the faction to one gender.
I would explain it by having the geneseed be deadly if youre not compatible, meaning 50% of the people that gets chosen die when the gene seed is adminestrated. it would then go in line with the imperium using it despite the risk because the cost is deemed acceptable. Then i add the fact that gene seed is deemed a holy relic from the golden age and cant be tampered with despite the fact that they cant "fix" the mortality rate because they cant use it that way and by decree only the space marines themselves can choose who gets to initiate this transformation, wich they do because of honour, martial skill etc and not actually if they are safe from the gene seed killing them.
I think this shows that the imperium is desperate for survival but still hold the past to such a high degree that they arent willing to progress forward.
Because to me at the end of the day female space marines is a best case scenario and i dont really care all that much if i never see them even though i will defend my opinion and said oipinion is entrenched in the idea of representation and equality. What i meant by the in-universe explanations was that i wanted you to give me the sort of explanation that you just gave me. i now understand why you think it is important for the faction to be male only.
And i must confess that i might have kept the discussion going just to see if i can get this sort of answer.
Well, no worries now. At the end of the day, it's unlikely either of us will get a chance to give these opinions to GW proper.
Why do these threads always devolve in to female space marine threads?
Space Marines are a tiny, practically insignificant portion of the Imperium, with close to zero effects on the day to day economy, governance, culture, and military power of any given planet. Yes, GW focuses on them because there's a lot of people in GW who are fans of Space Marines, but that doesn't actually mean that they must be the end discussion of a "Women in the Imperium" thread.
Melissia wrote: Why do these threads always devolve in to female space marine threads?
Space Marines are a tiny, practically insignificant portion of the Imperium, with close to zero effects on the day to day economy, governance, culture, and military power of any given planet. Yes, GW focuses on them because there's a lot of people in GW who are fans of Space Marines, but that doesn't actually mean that they must be the end discussion of a "Women in the Imperium" thread.
I think I actually touched on this. In universe, Space Marines are a tiny force. Hardly enough to warrant the Imperium being classed as sexist purely based on that.
Of course, it's their exposure on the tabletop that is where they are more common. In fact, I'd probably be willing to say that there's probably more Space Marine minis than actual Space Marines in the 41st Millenium.
Indeed. To be honest, the Imperium isn't really more sexist than modern society; in some ways more, in some ways less, depending on the planet and the institution.
For example, the Imperial Guard for the most part doesn't care what your junk looks like. It only cares if you can point a lasgun at the enemy and pull the trigger before getting killed. They make a few adjustments for the sake of efficiency-- single gender units are more common than mixed gender units, to avoid pregnancy risks-- but for the most part, they're gender-blind.
By contrast, the Schola Progenium has some serious sexism in that it's believed to be the proper role for women graduates to join the Adepta Sororitas, militant or non-militant as by the capability of the woman in question (while the Sisters are a lot more prestigious of an organization in-universe than a lot of people realize, that doesn't make it not sexist).
And the Inquisition is, as an organization, completely gender-blind. They concern themselves with their inquisitorial duties and whoever has the iron will and immense capability to fulfill them has the job.
Games workshop's inability to make female cahracters for the Guard and Inquisition along with other groups (Eldar and Tau for example) is a failing of Games Workshop as a company (and as human beings), but IMO it's not actually reflective of the lore, which does not contain the same biases as Games Workshop's creative teams do. It contains entirely different biases, and TBH I don't think it's really better or worse, overall, than real life.
Oh I never said they couldn't. I said they are pushed towards the Sororitas and it's considered the proper place for women graduates to be. Female commissars and stormtroopers are considered rare and aberrations because most women are pushed towards the Sisterhood.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I have explained my stance on Female Space Marines. I do not think they are necessary, because there is a fluff explanation as to why they cannot exist, and I do not see a problem with the limitation, as it runs parallel to the inverse restriction on gender with the Sisters of Battle. I accept the fluff, as there is no reason for me to question it over any other piece of fluff, such as "Why are orks green?" or "Why does a lasgun look like that?" or "Why does the Warp exist?" There is no neglected gender fluff wise, but I can completely agree that representation of women in the factions they should be represented in is shockingly neglectful..
Actually you have referred to a fluff piece that states that women cant be space marines. So i ask you: what would change or break for the space marines if GW tomorrow changes the passage and introduces female space marines? What change is so horrible that the passage cant be changed?
Firstly, I have no idea what that first sentence referred to.
Secondly, I think the more important thing, which is more accepted in debates like this, is why should be changed in the first place? I shouldn't have to justify that which already exists.
Prove to me that it should be changed, and then I can contest. However, I won't just respond to a "But why not" without a reason.
The point of the question was that for someone who is very adamant to not include female space marine, you havent actually elaborated on why such a change would be bad for the faction. you have said that fluff says no, asked what gender means to sisters, but when asked with the same question you refuse to give an answer as to what in the space marines as a faction limits this.
I have my own theory: because you lose nothing. nothing in the space marines description (other than prefixes) or themes of different chapters actually stop working because female space marines are added to them. Or can you prove me wrong?
Adding female Space Marines is as "bad" as adding Male Sisters of Battle. To me, it is the same scenario. If Sisters of Battle did not exist, I would push for mixed gender Space Marines.
So, with that knowledge, why should it be changed?
I say you lose the sense of hopelessness in the Imperium, and the cost of gene-seed. Hopelessness in that they cannot use a full 50% of their potential applicants due to gender, and the cost of gene-seed being that great power, but 50% of the population cannot accept it.
I will say that you have a good reason to believe that, it is a good explanation of the themes present. But i have to say that in my opinion the hopelessness and desperation of the imperium can be conveyed without locking down the faction to one gender.
I would explain it by having the geneseed be deadly if youre not compatible, meaning 50% of the people that gets chosen die when the gene seed is adminestrated. it would then go in line with the imperium using it despite the risk because the cost is deemed acceptable. Then i add the fact that gene seed is deemed a holy relic from the golden age and cant be tampered with despite the fact that they cant "fix" the mortality rate because they cant use it that way and by decree only the space marines themselves can choose who gets to initiate this transformation, wich they do because of honour, martial skill etc and not actually if they are safe from the gene seed killing them.
I think this shows that the imperium is desperate for survival but still hold the past to such a high degree that they arent willing to progress forward.
Because to me at the end of the day female space marines is a best case scenario and i dont really care all that much if i never see them even though i will defend my opinion and said oipinion is entrenched in the idea of representation and equality. What i meant by the in-universe explanations was that i wanted you to give me the sort of explanation that you just gave me. i now understand why you think it is important for the faction to be male only.
And i must confess that i might have kept the discussion going just to see if i can get this sort of answer.
Lusall wrote: There's some good fan fiction out there. And the thing is, 40K sort of invites you to write your own fan fiction. At least it used to. A lot more than it does now, I think. So it's not shocking that this conversation comes up. What do people do when they write/create fan fiction? They like to insert themselves into their little slice of the fluff.
And like I've said, I don't mind at all if people have female space marines. It's your 40K.
I do think that more female characters in the armies that are unisex wouldn't be a bad thing. Hell, it would be a good thing. There are plenty of dudes that would love to see more women characters, especially for their Imperium armies.
I always like good stories, do you know where one can find fan fiction? Is there a community hub or are they scattered throughout different sites?
1d4chan has some, but they tend to be a bit NSFW or lulz-worthy.
Dakka Fiction has some good material on it.
Insert shameless plug on the links in my sig but don't feel obliged to because they're nothing compared to some other works in there, notably Dark Lord Seanron's Death of the Emperor I'm sorry I'll stop
Oh yeah, thanks. i will have to check it out.
Looks like someone beat me to it. Sorry for the late response. Portent/Warseer use to have some good fan fic. ID4chan I'm told has some good stuff too. Mainly you have to find it randomly. Some people in facebook 40K groups post their stories and I've enjoyed some.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Emphasis on "think". Which is fine. I just disagree, but that's just me.
Well, I also spent quite some time explaining why I think this too ^^.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But the Ecclesiarchy shows plenty of variety in it's organisation - from clearing new pastures for the God-Emperor, to defending Shrine Worlds, to enlightening reunited human colonies, etc etc. Sisters could easily be expanded without the removal of any entrenched lore, which would go hand in hand with a new wave of miniatures.
Yeah, they definitely could get more miniatures. But even if they got as many new models as there exist of Eldars (both CWE and DE) it would still be less than what Marines get, so…
Just Tony wrote: Yes it is. With the exception of the EXACT Imperial department they answer to, Sisters of Battle are essentially weaker Black Templars.
I would rather play a mixed-gendered Sisters of Battle army than a Black Templar army. Because Sisters are different in various ways that make them more interesting.
Just Tony wrote: Cool, we can swing that. While we're at it, only the Sisters of the Penitent Rose can be all female. Equality and all. Wouldn't want double standards.
Nah, an Order is not equivalent to a Chapter. Orders all belongs to the same organization and are similar. Chapters are completely distinct organization with very different interests, cultures and all that.
Just Tony wrote: To everyone else, it sounds like a political agenda.
“So, uh, those evil people are pushing an evil political agenda, which is, uh, that media have a more equal portrayal of men and women, which is very bad, because reasons. Very dark very hidden agenda that they carefully hide, but push in the shadows nonetheless!”
Yeah I know this is kind of backseat moderating, and I know this thread is thirteen pages long now, but that's not an excuse to get off topic and start making condescending personal attacks.
We're talking about our differing interpretations of 40k lore as it relates to women in the Imperium. "Politics" are involved because people and their interactions with greater society are involved, and ultimately that's what politics is about-- being an active citizen in a larger society. And to try to drag this back on topic, women in the Imperium are exactly that, active members of Imperial society. This isn't "pushing an agenda" or however you want to phrase it, it's just a fact about the lore.
When I look at a fictional world I look at it from the confines of that fictional world, I don't throw real world politics or activism in when I read/view/play/whatever it. My issues are with people who do such, and that is why you have a thread that's 13 pages long that essentially boils down to most people being for representation, and a few for specific representation of themselves or their friends in the fluff, no matter how it contradicts existing canon. When met with such belligerence, I tend to get condescending apparently. That is my fault, and I will endeavor to actively circumvent that.
Hybrid: I will simply handle our disagreement like I do with my 15 year old when she's firmly entrenched. "You're right, I'm wrong, I'm shutting up."
Just Tony wrote: I don't throw real world politics or activism in when I read/view/play/whatever it.
Yes, you do.
The lens you view any fiction through is your lived experience as a human being, your knowledge, history, education, and the culture in which you were raised. Claiming that your experience isn't politics but others' are is the real condescension here.
I made my views on the Space Marine / Female Space Marine topic rather clear before I think, but just to elaborate-- they're not important to me. Neither one. This is a topic about "women in the imperium", and yet stereotypically, it's instead revolving around screaming angry (mostly white) space marine men.
Women in the Imperium-- and men-- fulfill far more roles than just "fodder for producing mary sues encased somewhere inside of powered armor".
It is certainly true that how we understand the real world affects how we understand fiction (and vice versa). That said, I am completely wary of analyzing fiction in order to "discover" the creators' "unconscious biases," especially when it turns out to actually be an analysis of how the fiction is received by whoever rather than what the creators arguably intended. In the case of 40k, it's pretty hard to argue that the setting is meant to comment on or even reflect any real-world racism or sexism - and maybe this is surprising given the deeply dystopian character of the setting. This is a pretty solid summary:
Melissia wrote: To be honest, the Imperium isn't really more sexist than modern society; in some ways more, in some ways less, depending on the planet and the institution.
The Imperium is a big place and hypothetical fanfiction or even a story published by BL set on a planet where sexism was standard practice would not be out of place. On the other hand, it still would not be reflective of the larger 40k brand. And I am definitely keeping in mind how huge SM are to that brand.
WLG might actually be fine for 40k - they tend to be beefier, more heroic miniatures (at least the Bolt Action range). I want a squad or three of these ladies for sure!
Yeah their poses really look off to me. Their chests are also a bit too pronounced, they are all bare-faced and also often bare-headed so they should look satisfyingly female to everyone regardless.
Melissia wrote: The lens you view any fiction through is your lived experience as a human being, your knowledge, history, education, and the culture in which you were raised. Claiming that your experience isn't politics but others' are is the real condescension here.
Exactly. "I'm fine with things as they are now" is a political opinion.
Melissia wrote: The lens you view any fiction through is your lived experience as a human being, your knowledge, history, education, and the culture in which you were raised. Claiming that your experience isn't politics but others' are is the real condescension here.
Exactly. "I'm fine with things as they are now" is a political opinion.
I'm confused how this has anything to do with politics in the first place, but certainly your view can and will be down to your schema
Lusall wrote: If by Imperium, you mean the Administratum? They don't give two effs if you're male or female. You're life is a currency and they'll spend it all the same. Male, female, or whatever.
But there are surely worlds that are backwards AF and others where females rule and everything in between.
Why is female supremacy ok and male supremacy "backwards AF"? They're either both backwards for their lack of equality or they both have merit.
I feel like the only faction that really needs a change is the Imperial Guard.
Adepta Sororitas are only female, equivalent of Battle Nuns. That, is fine. The Elite men go to Militarum Tempestus, the Females go to Sororitas.
Same thing with Space Marines. All of their enhancements and abilities are designed to make them better at killing, and are built off testosterone. So it's understandable for it to be a Men only thing. Also the whole descendants of Primarchs, who are all Men. I also don't really think of Space Marines as a power fantasy like the old Conan comics in the 80's. All the new art depicts them as a young Schwarzenegger, but I like the description of Astartes in the Decent of Angels novel, where without the armour they look like a gross mound of muscle and flesh, like a bodybuilder who has gone waaaaaayyyy too far.
With the Imperial Guard, there is no excuse as to why there are no Females. I'm pretty sure your sex doesn't matter when you are facing a horde of Tyranids armed with a flashlight. Don't even need to change up the models, just add a set of female heads. Look at the modern military, cover up their faces and most of the time you can't tell the difference. Also chuck in a female Commisar or two. Nobody is going to disrespect her when she can very easily put a bullet through your skull. 3 blams later and the entire regiment has learned not to call her Dollface.
So yeah, leave the other factions as Girls only and Boys only, but make Imperial Guard the actual representation of the Common folk, mixed sex
I'm all for that, I couldn't agree more. I.G./A.M. Might be all male on planets like Krieg, but elsewhere there'd be mixed regiments and all female regiments. They can do that without ret-conning the fluff and that's the only thing that would annoy me. I don't wanna see a long lost female primarch or male sisters of battle. IG/Eldar/Tau/Dark Eldar/inquistion/admech/skit/GSC all should have female options however.
Just Tony wrote: I don't throw real world politics or activism in when I read/view/play/whatever it.
Yes, you do.
The lens you view any fiction through is your lived experience as a human being, your knowledge, history, education, and the culture in which you were raised. Claiming that your experience isn't politics but others' are is the real condescension here.
No, I don't. I can read through any fiction objectively. Honestly, the worst experiences I have with fiction is where species that have NO sort of allegory with humanity are given one, rather specific ones typically, which breaks immersion for me and dulls it down to me essentially reading human cosplay. When I saw the Star Wars prequels, the first thing that killed it for me was the Howard Cosell announcer, the second was the bar with the "death sticks" salesman. Why didn't they just slap a few Pepsi or Doritos signs everywhere? If you're going to break immersion to that degree, might as well go all out.
Manchu wrote:It is certainly true that how we understand the real world affects how we understand fiction (and vice versa). That said, I am completely wary of analyzing fiction in order to "discover" the creators' "unconscious biases," especially when it turns out to actually be an analysis of how the fiction is received by whoever rather than what the creators arguably intended. In the case of 40k, it's pretty hard to argue that the setting is meant to comment on or even reflect any real-world racism or sexism - and maybe this is surprising given the deeply dystopian character of the setting. This is a pretty solid summary:
Melissia wrote: To be honest, the Imperium isn't really more sexist than modern society; in some ways more, in some ways less, depending on the planet and the institution.
The Imperium is a big place and hypothetical fanfiction or even a story published by BL set on a planet where sexism was standard practice would not be out of place. On the other hand, it still would not be reflective of the larger 40k brand. And I am definitely keeping in mind how huge SM are to that brand.
The thing about the 40K universe is that it's an extension of our current universe, so human tropes are totally to be expected. Unless it's the Eldar or another race. Picture an Eldar taking out their iphone 77.1 to answer their farseer. Yeah....
Just Tony wrote: No, I don't. I can read through any fiction objectively.
If you are annoyed by finding what you think is “real world politics or activism”, maybe it's because you do throw real world politics and activism in there (and I mean the maybe ^^). For instance, I remember when a bunch of Gamergate people were very very upset about some Baldur's Gate expansion having a character mention that she was raised as a boy. So, is it the writers introducing real-world politics… or is it really the complainers introducing the real-world politics where the existence of trans people is considered somehow controversial, in a world where it's not considered political at all, and sex change happens regularly as a matter of fact (even back in BG1 there was a cursed magic item that did just that)? Wouldn't not portraying trans be “injecting real world politics or activism”? Here I would say they were the one injecting.
On the other hand, sometime the injection of real world politics in very obvious, like in, say, 1984, or for a way way less talented take, Dan Simmons' Flashback. But then usually that is the very reason people read those books for.
Just Tony wrote: No, I don't. I can read through any fiction objectively.
If you are annoyed by finding what you think is “real world politics or activism”, maybe it's because you do throw real world politics and activism in there (and I mean the maybe ^^). For instance, I remember when a bunch of Gamergate people were very very upset about some Baldur's Gate expansion having a character mention that she was raised as a boy. So, is it the writers introducing real-world politics… or is it really the complainers introducing the real-world politics where the existence of trans people is considered somehow controversial, in a world where it's not considered political at all, and sex change happens regularly as a matter of fact (even back in BG1 there was a cursed magic item that did just that)? Wouldn't not portraying trans be “injecting real world politics or activism”? Here I would say they were the one injecting.
On the other hand, sometime the injection of real world politics in very obvious, like in, say, 1984, or for a way way less talented take, Dan Simmons' Flashback. But then usually that is the very reason people read those books for.
Really? Did you read the steam reviews? They criticized the game more commonly for becoming buggy and secondly for making a character they described as a Trans Token character. Not a Trans character that is Trans but has other personality points but one that only exists to be Trans. Point being if your only identifier is being gay, straight or trans and you have no other qualities as a human being you are very one dimensional and boring. I mean i remember reading a gaming site criticizing the steam reviewers while cherry picking the most offensive reviews only for the commenters in the article to actually sometimes talk crap about the journalist. Even more interesting was a Trans person saying they hated the Trans Token character as it was a Token character with no other depth. In short just including somebody that's Trans or Gay without other features is lazy and is only done to check a box on a representation list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rakar wrote: I'm all for that, I couldn't agree more. I.G./A.M. Might be all male on planets like Krieg, but elsewhere there'd be mixed regiments and all female regiments. They can do that without ret-conning the fluff and that's the only thing that would annoy me. I don't wanna see a long lost female primarch or male sisters of battle. IG/Eldar/Tau/Dark Eldar/inquistion/admech/skit/GSC all should have female options however.
I will admit IG need more, eldar have a bunch but could use more, tau have a couple but considering the battle suits it's often hard to tell (unless we're talking fire warriors but they are very alien), dark eldar have a lot but could maybe use a female archon, admech replace so much with robot parts you may as well make a female necron lord considering they don't even have genitalia anymore (robot boobies?), GSC may actually make sense with female soldiers as they are basically slightly alien guard. I would rather not picture a female GSC though. Chances are what they've got is not going to win any beauty contests. And now i wonder if anybody made some really disgusting dirty fan fics or pics with GSC. Believe it or not there was one pic i found of skaven raping a lizardmen chick or trying to. I think i was as disgusted as i was shocked a person's porn got that oddly specific and fetish filled.
You guys wanna know what game had lots of female characters and models? Warhammer Fantasy. Thank god Kirby got the boot. He probably nearly got tar and feathered.
Just Tony wrote: No, I don't. I can read through any fiction objectively.
If you are annoyed by finding what you think is “real world politics or activism”, maybe it's because you do throw real world politics and activism in there (and I mean the maybe ^^). For instance, I remember when a bunch of Gamergate people were very very upset about some Baldur's Gate expansion having a character mention that she was raised as a boy. So, is it the writers introducing real-world politics… or is it really the complainers introducing the real-world politics where the existence of trans people is considered somehow controversial, in a world where it's not considered political at all, and sex change happens regularly as a matter of fact (even back in BG1 there was a cursed magic item that did just that)? Wouldn't not portraying trans be “injecting real world politics or activism”? Here I would say they were the one injecting.
On the other hand, sometime the injection of real world politics in very obvious, like in, say, 1984, or for a way way less talented take, Dan Simmons' Flashback. But then usually that is the very reason people read those books for.
If a species has an id or ego, then addressing subjects such as transgenderism isn't injecting human specific issues into the fiction. But saying every evolved species has a sitcom called "Friends" would definitely be. Assuming every species on every planet in every fiction has bars and people dance to hip hop would most assuredly be. Read Barry B. Longyear's The Enemy Papers to see how you can deal with an alien species without hamfisting Earth culture into every aspect of their lives.
Just Tony wrote: But saying every evolved species has a sitcom called "Friends" would definitely be. Assuming every species on every planet in every fiction has bars and people dance to hip hop would most assuredly be.
Oh okay. It's fair, but I don't understand how we switched topic to this.
Just Tony wrote: Assuming every species on every planet in every fiction has bars and people dance to hip hop would most assuredly be.
I don't really see what your point here is, things like this are near-universal in scifi. I guess you can be annoyed by a common genre element, but what are you really trying to accomplish here?
Just Tony wrote: But saying every evolved species has a sitcom called "Friends" would definitely be. Assuming every species on every planet in every fiction has bars and people dance to hip hop would most assuredly be.
Oh okay. It's fair, but I don't understand how we switched topic to this.
Peregrine wrote:
Just Tony wrote: Assuming every species on every planet in every fiction has bars and people dance to hip hop would most assuredly be.
I don't really see what your point here is, things like this are near-universal in scifi. I guess you can be annoyed by a common genre element, but what are you really trying to accomplish here?
The point is I'm able to withdraw my personal self away when I read/watch/play something, and don't need this massive influx of my every day into my fiction/programming/games. The beginning of this was how every aspect of the Imperium needs to be an exact representation of OUR time, and it doesn't need to be. It needs to be its own thing. It also needs no explanation as to why ANYTHING shows up. Except for female Space Marines or male Sisters of Battle, as that is addressed already. My going off on that tangent is because several people accused me of essentially lying about being able to apply abstraction to what I ingest intellectually, and they were wrong.
Just for completion, I also do not want to see a female ork line. They're a bioweaponized fungus that doesn't breed..they are what they are and should remain so.
Just Tony wrote: The point is I'm able to withdraw my personal self away when I read/watch/play something, and don't need this massive influx of my every day into my fiction/programming/games. The beginning of this was how every aspect of the Imperium needs to be an exact representation of OUR time, and it doesn't need to be.
So why don't you have any objection to how all-male space marines reflect real-world gender stereotypes? I think the more accurate thing to say here is that you're fine with the everyday existing in your fiction as long as it agrees with your beliefs, but have a problem with it when something disagrees with you.
It also needs no explanation as to why ANYTHING shows up.
That's a terrible way to write fiction. Realism, internal consistency, etc, are important parts of making a good story. Throwing down a bunch of random ideas and handwaiving away all criticism with "I don't need to explain it, it's fiction" is the kind of stuff that low-talent fanfiction writers are limited to, we should have higher standards for (supposed) professional authors like GW employs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flamingkillamajig wrote: Really? Did you read the steam reviews? They criticized the game more commonly for becoming buggy and secondly for making a character they described as a Trans Token character. Not a Trans character that is Trans but has other personality points but one that only exists to be Trans. Point being if your only identifier is being gay, straight or trans and you have no other qualities as a human being you are very one dimensional and boring.
And I'm sure it's entirely a coincidence that the character they decided to criticize is one whose primary trait is something associated with their anti-SJW crusade, rather than any of the countless NPCs in virtually every game that are relatively "deep" if they have even a single dimension of character development beyond their combat stats. Just like it was absolutely 100% about ethics in game journalism and purely a coincidence that the crusade only started over an "SJW" target, not the blatant pay-for-reviews system that had been going on for as long as game "journalism" had existed. And I'm sure that the anti-SJW crusaders who embraced gamergate despite previously expressing nothing but contempt for gamers had a genuine change of heart on the issue, and weren't just using the controversy as an opportunity to attack "SJW"s.
Sorry, but gamergate was nothing more than the right-wing outrage machine being awful, there was nothing legitimate at all about it.
Except they weren't criticizing the character they said the game was garbage and buggy. Most of the reviews said that but certain journalists pointed to the ones throwing out the transgendered character. But hey go check the steam reviews to see if i'm right. Last i checked i am.
Go on steam and type the game title: Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear.
The negative reviews i see that got the most ratings just talk about bugs rather than any transgender person (only one even mentioned the trans person). Some of the less popular reviews might but they're not getting all the helpful review recommendations. Clearly though it's a good reason for the company to say 'Hey guys we got lots of thumbs down for a trans character so thumbs up our crappy game."
Here's just some excerpts:
Spoiler:
"buggy multiplayer, not recommended until patched"
"Doesn't feel like Baldur's Gate at all.
Linear progression through the game with previous areas becoming unavailable once you pass to the next.
Lazy writing that lends to little roleplaying options.
Bugs, bugs and more bugs."
"the multiplayer is just a mess. a friend and i needed about 1.5h to get a multiplayer game running, just to encounter a bug after the intro dungeon where we lost our keys the moment they where added to the keyring.
here are some of the major bugs we encounterd in multiplayer:
-gear from imported characters just disappeard
-created characters (except the groupleader) all had a mage style starting gear (robe, quarterstaff, ...)
-game constantly crashing while saving while friend of mine was host (host switching "fixed" this bug...)
-unpausing didn't work for client player (workaround - talk to npc..., after restarting this one worked)
-keys disappeard the moment they where added to the keyring
so don't buy if you want to play with friends until patched
singleplayer works well so far..."
"Beamdog: Please fix multiplayer!!!!!!!
I love BG: EE and I am sure I will love this expansion, if I could play it. The multiplayer is literally unplayable at the moment :(.
Please fix..."
"The game in it's current state is really buggy and has broken a few things like mods, and multiplay. Maybe in the future when things get ironed out I'll be able to recommend this expansion."
"I'm a huge fan of the Baldur's Gate franchise and, over the years, have played through the campaigns more times than I can count. That said, I would urge fans of the series to hold off on purchasing this DLC for the moment. Here are a few of the issues I experienced in SoD.
-Attempting to import my protagonist via save file or character import results in him being stripped of all equipment. This gear is permanently lost. (If you have an endgame save from the main campaign this doesn't occur, but I don't have that luxury.)
-Game difficulty settings are broken and can retroactively corrupt save files if you're attempting to play on the highest difficulty.
-Multiplayer is in an unusable state.
-Although I have some minor grievances with the UI updating, there is one particular change I find rather immersion breaking. If you scroll towards the edge of the map, nearly half the screen will be blanketed in darkness. This was not present in previous versions. Here, for example, is one of the earliest conversations in the game. http://imgur.com/hcwj0SC
This is distracting at best and jarring at worst.
-When purchased through Steam, the DLC is accessed in a manner that breaks all mod compatibility. (I normally wouldn't count this against a developer, but this issue is not present in copies sold directly through Beamdog.)
There are other bugs of varying severity but I won't bother mentioning them all. I would advise anyone considering this DLC to wait for an official patch, as all of these issues have been reported and will hopefully be fixed in time. I just don't believe you should pay Beamdog to beta test their product in the interim."
"Game is umplayably buggy in Multiplayer. Over an hour to manage to even open a game in way that every player actually has gear instead of an empty inventory. Game crashes every time I save in multiplayer. Switching hosts the game now refuses to unpause for me. So everytime the game is saved or otherwise paused, I can not unpause until another player talks to an NPC which unpauses the game. Restarting the game fixed it. Continued playing only to discover that the key ring is buggy and any keys added to it just disappear....
Don´t buy this broken mess if you have any intention of playing with friends. Singleplayer seems to work so far."
And here's the kotaku article cherry picking steam reviews.
Interesting how one comment said that gamers were perfectly fine with the gay people in the same game. Must be very specific hate or maybe most of the hate is generated at the bugs as i showed on steam.
Rakar wrote: I'm all for that, I couldn't agree more. I.G./A.M. Might be all male on planets like Krieg, but elsewhere there'd be mixed regiments and all female regiments. They can do that without ret-conning the fluff and that's the only thing that would annoy me. I don't wanna see a long lost female primarch or male sisters of battle. IG/Eldar/Tau/Dark Eldar/inquistion/admech/skit/GSC all should have female options however.
Eldar/DE are great, because they regularly have female models, like the Howling Banshees and some Farseers. The DE have the model Lelith Hesperax, who is meant to be basically the best fighter in the universe
Inquisition, GSC, IG, Tau, all agree. Tau even have a model with Commander Shadowsun, so just expand on that.
Ad Mech would be weird, since they are all essentially genderless. The resemble Toasters more then Male/Female now days
Just Tony wrote: The point is I'm able to withdraw my personal self away when I read/watch/play something, and don't need this massive influx of my every day into my fiction/programming/games. The beginning of this was how every aspect of the Imperium needs to be an exact representation of OUR time, and it doesn't need to be.
So why don't you have any objection to how all-male space marines reflect real-world gender stereotypes? I think the more accurate thing to say here is that you're fine with the everyday existing in your fiction as long as it agrees with your beliefs, but have a problem with it when something disagrees with you.
...
Does it hurt to constantly stoke the flames of hate at all times?
I understand you have personal issues that color pretty much everything you say on here, but you really need to couch the remarks until you know what the feth you're talking about. BOTH examples (all male Space Marines and all female Sisters of Battle) have in-universe explanations as to why they exist, NONE of which are some sort of reinforcement of gender stereotypes. If that were the case, the SOB army's main units would be the Baby Factory and the Kitchen Crew. Now THAT would be reflecting stereotypes. Is that what's happening? Nope. Got a question for you which you probably already know the answer to: how many Special Forces units in the world are fully integrated with both sexes? We both know the answer because of the extremely high physical output necessary for the job. Not saying that there aren't women who can pull that off, but they are most assuredly in the minority, and would probably pursue other careers in the first place. You know, Carol Danvers is probably my favorite Marvel character, and has been for a very long time. I don't have any issue portraying strong women in fiction, in fact I relish it. However, if it's something along the lines of establishing parameters or "rules" within the fiction, I'm fine if they don't. Once again, I wouldn't insist on male Amazons for equality's sake, and I don't understand why some people aren't satisfied until any all male anything is integrated. Real world, I understand it. Fictional work? ESPECIALLY fictional work you could just refuse to buy to show your disdain? Nope, don't understand that at all.
It also needs no explanation as to why ANYTHING shows up.
That's a terrible way to write fiction. Realism, internal consistency, etc, are important parts of making a good story. Throwing down a bunch of random ideas and handwaiving away all criticism with "I don't need to explain it, it's fiction" is the kind of stuff that low-talent fanfiction writers are limited to, we should have higher standards for (supposed) professional authors like GW employs.
Now this one I should have footnoted. I am a Transformers fan, and right now there is a HUGE thing going on about female Cybertronians, mainly because the current comic universe was started under the premise of monogender and new writers decided that must be changed. If you are an old fossil like me, you'd remember Challenge of the Gobots. Female Gobots were commonplace, and no explanation was made or asked for. They also didn't do the whole Roboboobs thing which really pisses me off. I liken that to them walking around drinking Red Cyberbull energon drinks out of juice boxes. THAT is what I meant by not turning something into a detailed explanation fest. Just have something there and don't feel the need to justify your decision. Unless you're going to counter 25+ years of continuity by introducing female Space Marines. Nobody can wave their had THAT much.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Really? Did you read the steam reviews? They criticized the game more commonly for becoming buggy and secondly for making a character they described as a Trans Token character. Not a Trans character that is Trans but has other personality points but one that only exists to be Trans. Point being if your only identifier is being gay, straight or trans and you have no other qualities as a human being you are very one dimensional and boring.
And I'm sure it's entirely a coincidence that the character they decided to criticize is one whose primary trait is something associated with their anti-SJW crusade, rather than any of the countless NPCs in virtually every game that are relatively "deep" if they have even a single dimension of character development beyond their combat stats. Just like it was absolutely 100% about ethics in game journalism and purely a coincidence that the crusade only started over an "SJW" target, not the blatant pay-for-reviews system that had been going on for as long as game "journalism" had existed. And I'm sure that the anti-SJW crusaders who embraced gamergate despite previously expressing nothing but contempt for gamers had a genuine change of heart on the issue, and weren't just using the controversy as an opportunity to attack "SJW"s.
Sorry, but gamergate was nothing more than the right-wing outrage machine being awful, there was nothing legitimate at all about it.
You DO realize that not everything is an attack on your group, and that the world isn't trying to obliterate you? I can't stress that enough.
Lusall wrote: If by Imperium, you mean the Administratum? They don't give two effs if you're male or female. You're life is a currency and they'll spend it all the same. Male, female, or whatever.
But there are surely worlds that are backwards AF and others where females rule and everything in between.
Why is female supremacy ok and male supremacy "backwards AF"? They're either both backwards for their lack of equality or they both have merit.
dude. I'm sorry my word use got you all antsy in your pants.
I wasn't giving merit to one over the other. I was literally giving the point that the Imperium has worlds all over the spectrum. Not just including worlds where men rule or women rule.
But how's this? One's "backwards" because that refers to a society that was that we now consider repugnant. For example, modern Saudi Arabia is considered "backwards" in its treatment of women because that's how things were done "back in the day". It's barbaric.
Name me a major society where females ruled over men.
Back to the main point? No, females can't be space marines. No, the Imperium doesn't care about penises or vaginas in the end. Whatever fills out the ranks.
Just Tony wrote: I understand you have personal issues that color pretty much everything you say on here, but you really need to couch the remarks until you know what the feth you're talking about.
And I understand you don't think that rule #1 applies to people you don't like, but you need to follow it anyway.
BOTH examples (all male Space Marines and all female Sisters of Battle) have in-universe explanations as to why they exist, NONE of which are some sort of reinforcement of gender stereotypes.
I said marines reflect gender stereotypes and said nothing about SoB, so I don't know where your "baby factor" idea is coming from. And marines very clearly do reflect gender stereotypes about manly strength, courage, honor, etc. Remember that stereotypes are not necessarily negative qualities.
Also, aside from gender stereotypes, GWconstantly references real-world things in 40k's fluff. That's why we have stuff like Margaret Thatcher leading a mob of rioting British soccer fans against the Rainbow Warriors space marine chapter, while Rambo and the cast of every 80s Vietnam war movie sneak around in the background. If you want a setting where real-world references don't exist then 40k is not the game for you.
Got a question for you which you probably already know the answer to: how many Special Forces units in the world are fully integrated with both sexes? We both know the answer because of the extremely high physical output necessary for the job. Not saying that there aren't women who can pull that off, but they are most assuredly in the minority, and would probably pursue other careers in the first place.
I don't see the relevance of this given that space marines are not human and therefore have nothing to do with strength differences between male and female humans.
Once again, I wouldn't insist on male Amazons for equality's sake, and I don't understand why some people aren't satisfied until any all male anything is integrated. Real world, I understand it. Fictional work? ESPECIALLY fictional work you could just refuse to buy to show your disdain? Nope, don't understand that at all.
And one could have an equal lack of understanding about why people aren't satisfied unless there are male-only things. After all, they could just refuse to buy to show their disdain, so why do people insist on having male-only space marines?
Unless you're going to counter 25+ years of continuity by introducing female Space Marines. Nobody can wave their had THAT much.
Conveniently this is exactly what GW did with the Necron fluff. They deleted almost the entire existing fluff and replaced it with a new story that had only superficial similarities in some of the unit names. If anything making female space marines would be less of a change than some of GW's other fluff revisions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flamingkillamajig wrote: Except they weren't criticizing the character they said the game was garbage and buggy.
Err, lol? You do realize that we have quotes of your previous words, right? Where you clearly stated that they did criticize the character, and justified their reasons for doing so?
They criticized the game more commonly for becoming buggy and secondly for making a character they described as a Trans Token character.
-You, in a previous post
If you're going to respond to criticism by pretending you never said the thing being criticized then I don't see much of a productive discussion remaining here.
Diggaz were oomies that had degenerated and looked up to orkses (they were the descendants of the original imperial survey team). They weren't orkses in and of themselves. So since humans have male and female so do the diggaz.
TheoreticalFish wrote: Eldar/DE are great, because they regularly have female models, like the Howling Banshees and some Farseers.
I don't think there ever was a female farseer model. Only in Dawn of War…
Just Tony wrote: Does it hurt to constantly stoke the flames of hate at all times?
The flames of hate? I think you went quite a bit hyperbolic here, no?
I mean, I know hyperbole is the BEST THING EVER§§§, but come on.
You're right, I should have said run the crock-pot of hate. I'll be more reserved next time.
And as far as no female Farseer model goes, I thought there was one that was a Necromunda fig? I ordered it through a friend and ran it as my Farseer since Bullwinkle was the second worst Eldar model ever made. Possible she could have been a Warlock, but I could have sworn she was a Farseer. Oh well, I ran her as one at least.
How many people would have made the Thatcher comparison without it being pointed out? That's one. The Dirty Dozen and Rambo aren't models I run at all, nor would own specifically because of the references. That's two. I stopped buying cocdices in 5th, as the game had gotten to the point that I was no longer motivated to even play, so no knowledge of however they retconned away the Necron fluff. That's three. Space Marines ARE an elite Special Forces type army, so a comparison is totally valid. That's four. Once they retcon female Marines in the fluff, I will never argue against them as it will be official. UNTIL that happens, I will defend the fluff as it stands. That's five. AND I didn't violate rule #1 with any of this.
WAY on topic now: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GW, release an accessory frame for the IG sprues that will give people the ability to make female Guardspersons, and put out plastic kits with female Commisars and any other Imperial allies. Chase that with accessory sprues for every other race that may have a female variant. Please do this, so we can maybe move past this whole discussion.
Until the demand for female Marines dominates every thread, that is.
Got a question for you which you probably already know the answer to: how many Special Forces units in the world are fully integrated with both sexes? We both know the answer because of the extremely high physical output necessary for the job. Not saying that there aren't women who can pull that off, but they are most assuredly in the minority, and would probably pursue other careers in the first place.
I don't see the relevance of this given that space marines are not human and therefore have nothing to do with strength differences between male and female humans.
Space Marines start off as human, which is what makes it relevant. What they start off as matters. It's the same reason why they prefer to start with young candidates and why they prefer to start with physically fit candidates.
----------------------------------------------
I personally think the Imperium should be somewhat sexist. GW isn't consistent about how women are portrayed in the Imperium, and the fans are free to interpret it however they want, but I feel the Imperium works better as a sexist faction. The Imperium is supposed to be backwards. It's supposed to represent the future regressing. What portrays that better than clinging to gender roles 40,000 years in the future? I think there's some substance to the High Lords of Terra traditionally being portrayed as all white men. The Imperium works best as a faction if it's racist and sexist and exclusive. The future is supposed to be grimdark.
If people want a faction that's not sexist, they can play Eldar. Or if they want to play an Imperial faction that still represents women, they always have the Sisters of Battle.
LoneLictor wrote: I personally think the Imperium should be somewhat sexist.
I disagree. I think the Imperium needs to be callously uncaring about these kinds of things.
This; I feel the Imperium as a whole doesn't have the time to uphold any foreign policy or general views other than the teachings of the Ecclisiarchy and the rightfully footed xenophobia and fear of heresy it has.
No I didn't. I didn't quote the entirety of your long-ass post because I fething hate quote pyramids.
You clearly did ignore everything else I wrote though. I explained that it matters what Space Marines start out as. You ignored that explanation and included that one sentence, just so you could make the pedantic point that they aren't human anymore, which is something I already acknowledged.
If the base human that Space Marines start as didn't matter, Space Marines would recruit old people just as much as young people, and they would recruit sick people just as much as healthy people. But, it's been established that the base human used to make the Space Marine does matter.
LoneLictor wrote: You clearly did ignore everything else I wrote though. I explained that it matters what Space Marines start out as.
Just because I disagree with your logic doesn't mean I didn't read it. Your explanation is insufficient. Whatever humanity the initiate had before, they gave up in becoming Adeptus Astartes. In fact, the initiates give up their humanity as children, long before they even really get a chance to learn what it is to be human.
Furthermore, stop dragging this thread off topic on to Space Marines.
LoneLictor wrote: You clearly did ignore everything else I wrote though. I explained that it matters what Space Marines start out as.
Just because I disagree with your logic doesn't mean I didn't read it. Your explanation is insufficient. Whatever humanity the initiate had before, they gave up in becoming Adeptus Astartes. In fact, the initiates give up their humanity as children, long before they even really get a chance to learn what it is to be human.
If you were building super soldiers, and you required a human base, wouldn't you prefer a human base that has more testosterone and is naturally more inclined towards physical strength? Maybe if there was a shortage of humans, both men and women would be recruited. But as long as Chapters are free to be picky, they're going to pick the applicants with the most testosterone. Space Marines don't recruit women for the same reason they don't recruit sick people.
Furthermore, stop dragging this thread off topic on to Space Marines.
That's a cheap way to win an argument.
Space Marines are part of the Imperium. We're arguing about women in Space Marines - i.e. women in the Imperium. This isn't offtopic.
LoneLictor wrote: You clearly did ignore everything else I wrote though. I explained that it matters what Space Marines start out as.
Just because I disagree with your logic doesn't mean I didn't read it. Your explanation is insufficient. Whatever humanity the initiate had before, they gave up in becoming Adeptus Astartes. In fact, the initiates give up their humanity as children, long before they even really get a chance to learn what it is to be human.
If you were building super soldiers, and you required a human base, wouldn't you prefer a human base that has more testosterone and is naturally more inclined towards physical strength? Maybe if there was a shortage of humans, both men and women would be recruited. But as long as Chapters are free to be picky, they're going to pick the applicants with the most testosterone. Space Marines don't recruit women for the same reason they don't recruit sick people.
If I were building super soldiers whose implanted organs modify and replace the base human's hormones (which they do for Space Marines, among many other things), it wouldn't matter HOW much testosterone my base human has - the implant will force the target to produce as much of that hormone as needed.
It is the purity of the implantation target that is important, not their existing musculature/hormone levels - those come from the implants themselves.
Increasing the pool of potential candidates (with sufficient genetic and phenotypical purity) twofold through recruitment from females seems a worthwhile strategy.
Avoiding the sick has to do with the ability to survive the implantation process - wasting implants on targets that won't survive the implantation process is an exercise in futility.
LoneLictor wrote: You clearly did ignore everything else I wrote though. I explained that it matters what Space Marines start out as.
Just because I disagree with your logic doesn't mean I didn't read it. Your explanation is insufficient. Whatever humanity the initiate had before, they gave up in becoming Adeptus Astartes. In fact, the initiates give up their humanity as children, long before they even really get a chance to learn what it is to be human.
If you were building super soldiers, and you required a human base, wouldn't you prefer a human base that has more testosterone and is naturally more inclined towards physical strength? Maybe if there was a shortage of humans, both men and women would be recruited. But as long as Chapters are free to be picky, they're going to pick the applicants with the most testosterone. Space Marines don't recruit women for the same reason they don't recruit sick people.
If I were building super soldiers whose implanted organs modify and replace the base human's hormones (which they do for Space Marines, among many other things), it wouldn't matter HOW much testosterone my base human has - the implant will force the target to produce as much of that hormone as needed.
It is the purity of the implantation target that is important, not their existing musculature/hormone levels - those come from the implants themselves.
Increasing the pool of potential candidates (with sufficient genetic and phenotypical purity) twofold through recruitment from females seems a worthwhile strategy.
Avoiding the sick has to do with the ability to survive the implantation process - wasting implants on targets that won't survive the implantation process is an exercise in futility.
Let me put it this way:
You want to make the strongest person alive, so you're going to give them large amounts of hormones and steroids and training.
While the hormones and steroids and training will be doing most of the work, a male with those resources will be stronger than a female with those resources. Space Marines are free to be picky, and as long as they're free to be picky, it's pragmatic to prefer males, even if being male only makes a small difference. The pool of potential candidates is large enough as is. The chief limit on recruitment is geneseeds, not the potential amount of applicants.
Males are biologically stronger. Space Marines are supposed to be strong. It shouldn't be viewed as offensive or wrong that soldiers that are supposed to be strong prefer to recruit from the gender that is stronger. Nobody wants to be sexist, and I think that's influencing people's opinions on this topic, but we're not actually discussing which gender is better (neither one is) or which gender is worth more (neither one is). We're discussing pure physical differences. Men are better are fighting. Women are better at lactating. Both genders can do it, but one is definitively better than the other.
You want to make the strongest person alive, so you're going to give them large amounts of hormones and steroids and training.
Not really. Hormones interact in certain ways in certain amounts. Balance, control, and regulation of hormones are key to health and growth, not massive amounts.
What makes a Space Marine superhuman is not the level of testosterone flowing through his veins when he was a boy of 13 - instead, it would be the the adjusted hormones of various types that flow through his veins AFTER he is implanted with the geneseed and various organs inherent to the process.
Space Marine implants do a lot of things, but among the most important are the regulation of hormones which set off other aspects of the Aspirant's growth, including but not limited to skeletal hardening/modification, muscle growth, and the like. Because those implants control those functions, the baseline human they are placed in need not begin the process with high amounts of muscles - the process itself performs that feat, and does so in ways infinitely better than any natural hormone-infused state the baseline human could have.
While the hormones and steroids and training will be doing most of the work, a male with those resources will be stronger than a female with those resources. Space Marines are free to be picky, and as long as they're free to be picky, it's pragmatic to prefer males, even if being male only makes a small difference. The pool of potential candidates is large enough as is. The chief limit on recruitment is geneseeds, not the potential amount of applicants.
Biologically, males are females with different hormones applied to them from birth due to the activation of the Y chromosome, which results in different physiological consequences.
The problem with your reasoning is that the process of Space Marine implantation and development is a far more substantial alteration of the subject's body than the male/female differentiation, to the point that it would make practically NO DIFFERENCE that I could imagine if you start with a prepubescent male or female human - the vast, vast majority of development into Space Marine physiology is done by the IMPLANTS and external machinations, not by the human host's natural hormones.
And the wider the pool, the better - geneseed is absolutely a limiting factor, but it is certainly not the only one, and arguably not even the chief one: instead, it is the impurity of the subject of the implants, and the consequent rejection of that human body of the implants and geneseed, that limit and stop the development of a Space Marine.
Double the pool, double the chance you can find the purity necessary to successfully implant.
Males are biologically stronger. Space Marines are supposed to be strong. It shouldn't be viewed as offensive or wrong that soldiers that are supposed to be strong prefer to recruit from the gender that is stronger. Nobody wants to be sexist, and I think that's influencing people's opinions on this topic, but we're not actually discussing which gender is better (neither one is) or which gender is worth more (neither one is). We're discussing pure physical differences. Men are better are fighting. Women are better at lactating. Both genders can do it, but one is definitively better than the other.
Space Marines are neither men nor women, they are superhuman monstrosities that develop from a human host through arcane science and strict external control. The end result of the development of Space Marine physiology would be no different if you started with a 13 year old female than it would if you started with a 13 year old male - either will stand at over 7 feet tall, have ceramic-infused bones, develop "fused" overlapping plates for ribs, have incredibly overdeveloped musculature, have acid-spit, be able to eat enemies and learn their memories, and a wide variety of other effects.
Given the lack of a physical disparity post-development, a female Space Marine would be no less capable of training to fight, to kill, to rip, to tear, and to otherwise PURGE THE ENEMIES OF THE EMPEROR than a male Space Marine.
At best, the only time the gender of the host would make a difference to the process is if males were better able to handle pain (which, if memory serves, is actually the opposite of the truth - women are better at dealing with pain) or were less likely to die as a result of surgery (don't know if there actually is a difference there, haven't done the research) or implant rejection (don't know that either).
Talking about how males make better space marine starting points than females because of physical differences is absurd. Space marines are not human. They are so thoroughly distorted beyond the human body that any resemblance is superficial at best. And the process is blatantly "a space wizard did it". You could just as easily say that a female body makes the best starting point because it isn't burdened with the pathetic Y chromosome and its sad joke of strength-producing hormones. Much like a painter starts from a plain canvas instead of one already splattered with mud and last night's dinner the geneseed process works best with a Y-free body where the strength of the primarchs can be expressed in its purest form.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoneLictor wrote: You want to make the strongest person alive, so you're going to give them large amounts of hormones and steroids and training.
No, I want to make the smartest person alive. Physical strength is probably the least useful of a space marine's attributes. The whole point of power armor is that it doesn't matter how strong the person wearing it is, all they are doing is sending control signals to the armor. You don't need to be an olympic-level weightlifter to press the "crush that tank with a single punch" button.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: How many people would have made the Thatcher comparison without it being pointed out?
It was pretty common knowledge in the earlier days of GW, when they weren't at all subtle about the fact that 40k was a mix of various political/pop culture/Tolkien parodies.
I stopped buying cocdices in 5th, as the game had gotten to the point that I was no longer motivated to even play, so no knowledge of however they retconned away the Necron fluff.
Honestly, if you've stopped paying attention to 40k's fluff so throughly that you don't even know about the Necron retcon why are you posting about 40k fluff issues?
Once they retcon female Marines in the fluff, I will never argue against them as it will be official. UNTIL that happens, I will defend the fluff as it stands. That's five.
Do you really think this is a good argument? "I will defend GW's canon version of the fluff simply because it is GW's canon version, and accept whatever changes they wish to make"? What is the point of having a discussion of fluff opinions at all if your entire opinion is "nobody should ask for changes to anything"?
AND I didn't violate rule #1 with any of this.
Accusing me of having personal issues, stoking the flames of hate, etc, sure seems to be doing a pretty good job of breaking rule #1.
LoneLictor wrote: For the first time, I understand why conservatives use the phrase, "political correctness gone mad".
Fine. I concede that Space Marines are not supposed to be physically strong, testosterone doesn't affect strength, and that GW only portrays Space Marines as men because they're a bunch of sexist meanies.
Space Marines do become very strong (I'd even agree that they need to be to some extent, though Power Armor does a great deal of the work), but not because their 13 year old hosts happened to have a lot of testosterone flowing - they are strong because they receive implants which flood the human host with a multitude of new and old hormones (yes, potentially including testosterone, but almost certainly other/unique hormones as well) that rebuild the body's skeletal framework and musculature into 7 foot tall monstrosities of super-dense muscle and ceramic-hardened bone.
Testosterone affects human strength to a certain degree, but its presence (or comparative lack thereof - remember, girls ALSO have testosterone, they just don't produce as much of it naturally as boys do) in the human host before implantation are effectively meaningless factors - all the musculature that makes a Space Marine a Space Marine are the result of the Implant-regulated and Implant-produced hormones working to rebuild the human host of said implants from the ground up, and there is no reason to presume that a female host would somehow hinder those Implants in producing the quantities necessary to rebuild her body into a Space Marine's.
Honestly, a space marine female would almost certainly be absolutely indistinguishable from a male space marine unless you checked their "plumbing" explicitly. The skeletal structure would be neither female nor male - it would be Space Marine. The musculature would be neither female nor male, it would be Space Marine. The breast fat deposits would be neither female nor male - they would be Space Marine.
Peregrine wrote: Talking about how males make better space marine starting points than females because of physical differences is absurd. Space marines are not human.
Space marines are made from humans. Conflating the end product with the raw material is a mistake. A better analogy would be if you want to make a good sword, you can start with iron or bronze. If a pure human is pure iron, than a marine is an alloy- a mix of the base material and additions to create something stronger and superior to the original material.
Peregrine wrote: And the process is blatantly "a space wizard did it". You could just as easily say that a female body makes the best starting point because it isn't burdened with the pathetic Y chromosome and its sad joke of strength-producing hormones. Much like a painter starts from a plain canvas instead of one already splattered with mud and last night's dinner the geneseed process works best with a Y-free body where the strength of the primarchs can be expressed in its purest form.
You could, but then you'd be falling back on an in universe rational to justify why marines were all of one gender. Which is exactly what currently exists. Which I thought wasn't ok with you?
Peregrine wrote: The whole point of power armor is that it doesn't matter how strong the person wearing it is, all they are doing is sending control signals to the armor. You don't need to be an olympic-level weightlifter to press the "crush that tank with a single punch" button.
I was always under the impression that marine armour enhanced their strength. If the physical strength of the wearer is irrelevant, all that muscle on a marine becomes additional weight to haul, size to hit and a massive energy drain.
Surely the lack of representation of women in 40k is largely due to their (by and large) lack of interest in wargaming and the 40k universe? I think we may be overthinking this one..
Ahh, when social issues and nerd culture collide. It always ends well!
Women in the Imperium can range from highly powerful matriarchs to "breeders" and everything in between. Though, some sources imply misogyny is still very much a thing in M41 which makes thematic sense. The Imperium is supposed to be a totalitarian evil regime based on 14-17th century Europe.
Personally, I would suggest that the lack of representation is simply because the writers are putting very little thought in to it and just go with the first "cool" idea that enters their heads and, since they are almost all men (I think I found two women credited on black library when I checked a couple years ago-- one of them an editor, and the other an assistant editor who was the wife of one of the writers, but there may be actual women writers on staff instead of just editors by now), by default they make male characters because that's what they know how to write.
Melissia wrote: Personally, I would suggest that the lack of representation is simply because the writers are putting very little thought in to it and just go with the first "cool" idea that enters their heads and, since they are almost all men (I think I found two women credited on black library when I checked a couple years ago-- one of them an editor, and the other an assistant editor who was the wife of one of the writers, but there may be actual women writers on staff instead of just editors by now), by default they make male characters because that's what they know how to write.
That could be possible, however I wouldn't say you necessarily have to be the same gender as a character you're writing to make them good, or to consider them in the first place.
I do think that it was just the first thing they envisioned though; whether that correlates with their sex or not is up for discussion.
Melissia wrote: Personally, I would suggest that the lack of representation is simply because the writers are putting very little thought in to it and just go with the first "cool" idea that enters their heads
I'd wager it was purely a copy/paste issue. FB started by copying a bunch of other sources (Tolkien, some history books and others) where women weren't presented as soldiers. It established the FB world as a world of male warriors. 40k was then just that world, re imagined in space with space orc(k)s, space elves and space dwarves.
The flaws were in the original source, so to speak and it's only now people are starting to correct them.
Melissia wrote: Personally, I would suggest that the lack of representation is simply because the writers are putting very little thought in to it and just go with the first "cool" idea that enters their heads and, since they are almost all men (I think I found two women credited on black library when I checked a couple years ago-- one of them an editor, and the other an assistant editor who was the wife of one of the writers, but there may be actual women writers on staff instead of just editors by now), by default they make male characters because that's what they know how to write.
That could be possible, however I wouldn't say you necessarily have to be the same gender as a character you're writing to make them good, or to consider them in the first place.
I didn't say that first part. I said they didn't even bother to think about women characters in the first place, so they never made many of them.
I didn't say that first part. I said they didn't even bother to think about women characters in the first place, so they never made many of them.
Which I believe is correct. I'm just not sure whether it boils down to the fact that they were all male, or whether other factors were involved. I think they just went with males in most areas without any malicious or deliberate intent.
Then again, the argument could be made that they did consider it, and to them, the idea of females in certain areas (i.e. Space Marines) didn't fit with their vision. Also a possible outcome for why Space Marines are all male.
I could delve into possibilities from my psychological knowledge, but I think attempting to explain reasons why the lore was written the way it was in terms of cognitive processing would be both flawed and a bit unfair when I don't know a thing about the writers behind those snippets of 40k.
A woman's role in the imperium would be vastly different depending on which world she hails from. From a male-dominated feudal world, obviously it would be some horrible caricature of a housewife. From a planet that upholds a matriarchy, they would be in charge.
Aside from the SoBs and Space Marines, there doesn't seem to be any gender specific requirements for any of the other organizations (with a soft exception of the Callidus, but I remember some obscure fluff mentioning that there are male Callidus assassins, just that the polymorphine works better with a female physiology). The only one that really cares is the Imperial Guard, and then they only care because the segregate regiments so that "fraternization" doesn't become a commonplace distraction (and even then there are exceptions, like Cain's regiment).
It largely depends on where somebody hails from in the Imperium. But in most areas, Imperial society tends to be male-dominated in nature, either because of culture or practical considerations.
General Annoyance wrote: I think they just went with males in most areas without any malicious or deliberate intent.
That's also what I'm saying-- unconscious bias, not a deliberate decision. And people attempting to use this when, it wasn't actually a conscious decision, in order to make judgments about the lore is kinda silly to me.
Gotcha. Apologies, I misinterpreted your statement as suggesting they came up with it because they're male rather than it being just the first thing that sprang to mind.
Lusall wrote: If by Imperium, you mean the Administratum? They don't give two effs if you're male or female. You're life is a currency and they'll spend it all the same. Male, female, or whatever.
But there are surely worlds that are backwards AF and others where females rule and everything in between.
Why is female supremacy ok and male supremacy "backwards AF"? They're either both backwards for their lack of equality or they both have merit.
dude. I'm sorry my word use got you all antsy in your pants.
I wasn't giving merit to one over the other. I was literally giving the point that the Imperium has worlds all over the spectrum. Not just including worlds where men rule or women rule.
But how's this? One's "backwards" because that refers to a society that was that we now consider repugnant. For example, modern Saudi Arabia is considered "backwards" in its treatment of women because that's how things were done "back in the day". It's barbaric.
Name me a major society where females ruled over men.
Back to the main point? No, females can't be space marines. No, the Imperium doesn't care about penises or vaginas in the end. Whatever fills out the ranks.
By putting a value judgement on one and not the other you absolutely gave merit to your preferred sexist society. Yes Saudi Arabia is backwards, but any society that discriminates and oppresses based on genitalia is repugnant, no matter which sex dominates. You are hypocritical if you see the oppression of males as enlightened and the oppression of females as evil. You are being a sexist. Matriarchal societies have and do exist, though they've been far less prevalent, that does not make them superior. One could also argue they are on the rise in the west. Any society that values or devalues people based on their sex or skin color is objectively sexist or rascist and that is wrong. If you think matriachy is superior-defend it. If you mis-spoke own up to it rather than slinging sarcastic insults. Furthermore, if you'd bothered to read my posts, I was fully in support of female guardsmen.
So if you want to claim that saying a male-oppression society in fiction is better and more interesting is sexist, are you also also willing to admit that the bias towards female-oppression in literature is, itself, a direct result of sexism?
Melissia wrote: So if you want to claim that saying a male-oppression society in fiction is better and more interesting is sexist, are you also also willing to admit that the bias towards female-oppression in literature is, itself, a direct result of sexism?
Is this a question about a claim relating to subjective preference that proves real world attitudes?
It largely depends on where somebody hails from in the Imperium. But in most areas, Imperial society tends to be male-dominated in nature, either because of culture or practical considerations.
And this is stated where in the 40k fluff? There are a million or more worlds in the Imperium and how many have any kind of examination about their social and culture?
The game fluff has lightly explored some of the Space Marine recruiting worlds and a few others that spawned notable Imperial Guard regiments. The Black library authors who can on occasion move beyond Space Marines have done much more and the worlds they have described have been extremely variable from worlds that are quite similar to our own to strange and unusual ones.
There is no reason why one sex or other is in power - Imperial institutions simply don't care - including the most powerful ones - the Inquisition, the Ad Mech etc.
Indeed. The AdMech sees itself as beyond such things as rubbing genitals together. The Inquisition has more importnat things to worry about. The Imperial Guard only cares insofar as it uses single-gendered regiments more often because it limits pregnancy problems, genitals are not commonly used in the operation of lasguns after all. The Administratum fetishes paperwork far more than the human body. And so on. Really, the only places where the Imperium has well-defined examples of institutionalized sexism is in the Sororitas and Astartes.
Of course you could argue that this is just because GW does not want to confront that topic in its power fantasy wargame and attached lore bits and novels. Which, fair enough... but that still means there's no real evidence that male domination is a majority, or even at all that prevalent.
Kojiro wrote: Would you care to confirm that, or if not perhaps attempt to clarify?
The person I was responding to was suggesting that it was sexist for someone to prefer it when writers write societies where females dominate.
My response was to suggest via rhetorical question that if it is sexist to prefer settings where males submit to females, then logically speaking it's equally so to prefer settings where females submit to males. And this would mean that fiction writers, on average, are rather sexist.
In my opinion the role of women in 40k society is balanced, in nearly all races (excluding orks, who have no gender). In the Horus Heresy books, there are female remembrancers, pilots and soldiers. The stereotype that women do not fight is not seen anywhere, as female space marine serfs that are forced to fight seem just as willing to do so, and that's not to mention races like the Tau, where female Fire Caste members fight along men and the Eldar where women are seen more often then men. It seems like sexism is no real issue in the 41st millennium.
Now, that excludes both the Space Marine and SoB factions, as both of these are not single race but a small part of one. I understand that only men can be Space Marines, and that only women can be Battle Sisters, as the genetic upgrades were made with one gender in mind. I also think that adding female space marines into the fluff would be like changing Manchester United's name to Chelsea: there not the same thing. That's not to say that women can't wear space marine armour, or use SM weapons, so you could TECHNICALLY have female space marine models, and I bet that more then one Slaanesh worshipper has magically changed their gender, but those aren't "real" Space Marines, and so shouldn't be catagorized as such.
EmberlordofFire8 wrote: In my opinion the role of women in 40k society is balanced, in nearly all races (excluding orks, who have no gender). In the Horus Heresy books, there are female remembrancers, pilots and soldiers. The stereotype that women do not fight is not seen anywhere, as female space marine serfs that are forced to fight seem just as willing to do so, and that's not to mention races like the Tau, where female Fire Caste members fight along men and the Eldar where women are seen more often then men. It seems like sexism is no real issue in the 41st millennium.
Ember
Yep - in the novels and fluff - then look at the table top models and try and find the models you describe......
Yep - in the novels and fluff - then look at the table top models and try and find the models you describe......
We should consider that the thread is about Women in the Imperium, not Women in the Imperium on the Tabletop, although you are of course correct that representation is lacking in the latter.
dude. I'm sorry my word use got you all antsy in your pants.
