Ezra Tyrius wrote: Can we seriously not just agree to disagree, at this point? This discussion is going nowhere, and I doubt it's going to end well for any of us, or for this thread for that matter.
Personally, I'm going to stay in the 'Female Astartes aren't possible'-camp, for the reasons I've posted before; the rest of you, figure it out for your bloody selves.
If anyone still wants to discuss modelling ideas for female space marines or one of the other ideas, I'm all ears.
Apparently not.. cause agreeing to disagree does not result in the immediate death of all fem marine figs... I find people are too passionate and angry over this very concept to ever agree to disagree.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. Retailers don't force you to divulge your intended use of the products and only sell to people working on "Chapter Approved" projects. If you have the money and the time, you can make whatever army you like. But you already know that. So is it just a question of requiring some kind of approval from others? Or teasing them for withholding it? Seems pointless in either case.
Tactical_Spam wrote: I always had the impression that there was some untold Big Brother/Little Sister thing between the Astartes and the SoB where each is different, but bother can hold their own and admire each other.
Back on subject, from what I've read, the humans among Tau were almost all rank and file dudes, but I'd say I'm limited in that aspect of the fluff having only read 2-3 stories where human auxiliaries exist.
As far as i can tell there is no connection betwene them... one is a wing of the church and the other is a semi independent army that supports and protects the imperium.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unusual Suspect wrote: Agreed, though by being put in charge of Tau forces, that implies he has achieved at least as much respect as a warrior and leader as a Shas'o or Shas'el. While that isn't the absolute pinnacle, it is close enough to be a helluva significant achievement, and it is undeniably an achievement that goes beyond what a vast majority of Fire Caste members will ever achieve.
I don't see why a Your Dude human couldn't achieve something similar in the right circumstances. One would need to be careful to avoid Mary Sue-ism, but that's just about always the case when dealing with Your Dude situations, so that line of thought seems mostly a non sequitur.
Well i would take a great deal of inspiration from William Adams, the sailor who found himself stranded in japan after a tsunami. Basically this man. A british man took to japanese culture with such ferver and dedication. He quickly earned the ear of tokogawa himself, embracing the culture so thoroughly that he was made a Daimyo and given a fief, samurai and a beautiful bride. Others who met him who used to know him before described him as cold like he had cut away her heritage and embraced this new world like it was his true identity. even going as far as to hold contempt for his past.
If I were to tell a story of this woman it would not be one of unbridled success and possitivity. It would tell of a person who never knew freedom, did everything they were told and they never had a purpose and than once introduce to the Tau, something they took too with passion, discarding the imperium perhaps even with open contempt. Somebody who simply never felt alive or at home until introduced to this new world and found a purpose within the greater good.
Its a story of passion and finding themselves but also sacrificing everything they knew and was familiar to them. I believe its only somebody like this who would be capable of earning the trust of the Tau a great thinker and tactician and leader who never knew inspiration until the greater good. She isnt better than all the other Tau no of coursenot but to the Tau what better way to earn the trust of potential converts than showing them a human success story and giving them a leader, a human perspective may be very useful to a truely alien force and most of all it keeps the rabble on conqoured planets sated when they have a hero or icon to look to. A human they trust to tell them to "Fall in line and behave" propaganda by simply existing.
Manchu wrote: Oh come on guys 40k wasn't always so SRS BSNS like it has been since 4E. The names (and concepts!) are all pretty suitable for a toy soldiers game with low-key, swelf-aware humor.
I'm not sure it could be avoided. OTOH, I could imagine pretty entertaining story about a human who deserts the Guard to escape execution by Commissar or something and the Tau promote him to some kind of cushy position for propaganda purposes - the joke would be that the guy thinks he is actually being promoted for merit and all the Tau guys around him have to constantly keep a straight face about the whole thing. Could be a British sitcom.
Hah that would be entertainging.
A more grimdark idea would be for this particular human to be elevated to commander as sort of a social experiment by the Tau government. Constantly watched by people who he suspects are Tau Secret Police, can't work out if it's all some propaganda stunt to prove that humans are less capable of leading than Tau so they're playing in a rigged system. Go proper Soviet on it
Also, I never quite got the idea that GW writers are unimaginative. They've come up with a world so utterly chock-full of neat ideas that we're still debating it decades later. I certainly couldn't do that (although I've made a start).
All of the little naming conventions and bits they pull from other IPs are neat little pop-culture references. Like little in-jokes for people who recognise where it's from which I love hell, even the most hated piece of Grey Knight fluff (that weird thing with murdering the Sisters and painting them in blood) is a pop-culture reference to a crappy cult horror movie.
It's when you take the bigger picture and see just how many references from pop culture, geeky culture both old and new, and real-world historical and mythical events have been woven into the fabric of this universe that you get a sense of just how imaginative it really is
Of course, this completely falls apart the second I read the Space Wolves codex and find it to be ~80% 'Wolf'. You can't win them all I suppose
Tactical_Spam wrote: I always had the impression that there was some untold Big Brother/Little Sister thing between the Astartes and the SoB where each is different, but bother can hold their own and admire each other.
Back on subject, from what I've read, the humans among Tau were almost all rank and file dudes, but I'd say I'm limited in that aspect of the fluff having only read 2-3 stories where human auxiliaries exist.
As far as i can tell there is no connection betwene them... one is a wing of the church and the other is a semi independent army that supports and protects the imperium.
The SoB does just as much for the Imperium as the Astartes and the SoB have more political power than the Astartes.
@ the OP, I haven't read all of this discussion so apologies if said before.
Dismissing your 'Amazon Spacemarines' is not all that ingenious. If you read the Fabius Bile book Primogenitor Bile has created augmented humans from Astartes geneseed, the leader of this bunch happens to be female.
Dismissing your 'Amazon Spacemarines' is not all that ingenious. If you read the Fabius Bile book Primogenitor Bile has created augmented humans from Astartes geneseed, the leader of this bunch happens to be female.
This is a very good point. It is important to note though that Igori and the rest are not actual Astartes, but rather "Gland-Hounds".
Here's what I could get of the extract:
"Gland-hounds. The New Humanity, as designed by Fabius Bile. Stronger, faster, more aggressive than the brief sparks that sheltered in the shadow of the Imperium. The first generation had been born of partial gene-seed implantation. Those first few crude attempts had become more refined over time, as the master had devised his own, lesser form of gene-seed. One which was not so likely to kill its host out of hand. They came alert instantly. There was a disconcerting intensity to their blank gazes - as if he were some large bovid who had wandered unknowing into the midst of a carnosaur pack. It had been a long time since anything had looked at him that way, and he shivered in delight. 'They say, in the lands of milk and sorrow, that those pale echoes of our brothers now gone know no fear,' he said to Arrian. 'It saddens me to think of it .' As he spoke, one of hounds stepped forward, setting herself between them and the doorway beyond. She crossed her muscular arms, and gazed steadily at them. 'Igori,' Arrian said. There was an odd sort of respect in his tone, Oleander thought. He bridled at it. Arrian was free to consider the creature his equal, but Oleander was under no such obligation. 'You're new,' Oleander said , looking down at the woman - Igori, Arrian had called her. He sniffed, and grimaced. 'But I can tell you're one of his. I can smell it from here. ' Igori said nothing. Her face was square. It might as well have been chiselled out of marble. Everything about her was perfect. Too perfect, too symmetrical. As if she were nothing more than a machine of meat and muscle. "
As we see, certainly female. Certainly very powerful, easily a match for a Space Marines in strength and toughness. But it is important to note that even these Gland-Hounds are only borne of "partial gene-seed implantation", or Fabius' own "lesser form of gene-seed".
This lends credence to genetically augmented females being possible, as I have maintained alongside Ezra. As for them being actual Astartes? Not so.
@Ynneadwraith - I fully accept and return the apology. I understand that I argued for far longer than I probably should have, and that we are both free to interpret fluff as mutably as we each choose to. It is, as you said, one of 40k's very good factors. For me, I do support people's own creation of fluff, but for me, it rubs me up the wrong when when it counters what I see as outright statements, ie blue being blue, up being up, etc etc. Again, my apologies for dragging this out. I've taken a step back to avoid instigating much else.
For me, I have no intention of hounding anyone out. If OP was dead set on having female marines, and didn't actually care for established lore, I have nothing to say but go for it. It's only when this question is brought into lore forums, and directed as a "I like the lore but..." statement that rises a reaction. For me, I would expect to see actual lore discussed in this particular forum, and only for actual canon lore, with that being the only arbiter. As current lore stands, assuming it's immutable, female Space Marines are not possible. But if OP doesn't want to listen to lore, or they do believe in the mutability of that line, who am I to stop them, as a random person on the internet? My only real issue was that in a lore discussion, the lore itself was being ignored and seen as inappropriate in a lore discussion.
In response to your query of "Why is it that you feel so strongly about not having female Space Marines?", and "hasn't provided an explanation for why he deems that particular piece of fluff to be so important", it's just simple - I see that the lore is, without exceptional reason, immutable. I value the lore, and if it is immutable, like the statement of females not being able to be Space Marines, I'll default to the lore taking priority. Especially in a lore discussion. I feel strongly about it because I feel the lore to around the issue be immutable and of high priority in a lore discussion.
The established lore has plenty of opportunities for female Space Marines, really. I'm aware that this statement is going to piss people off (since it already has in this thread), but honestly, people are just so hung up on what basically amounts to a single throw-away line saying "NO GIRLS ALLOWED!" so GW didn't have to put more effort in to their own minis, that they make a mountain out of a molehill here. That GW has not explored the possibilities is really just evidence of GW's own laziness.
I'm annoyed that I feel obligated to defend FSM, really. But honestly, it's not even the most ridiculous idea that people have posted in this forum today, never mind this week, never mind this month, never mind this year or this decade even. But it's the one that gets the most attention, and it's very telling that it does.
Honestly, this is why this conversation will never have a satisfying end.
Melissia wrote: The established lore has plenty of opportunities for female Space Marines, really. I'm aware that this statement is going to piss people off (since it already has in this thread), but honestly, people are just so hung up on what basically amounts to a single throw-away line saying "NO GIRLS ALLOWED!" so GW didn't have to put more effort in to their own minis, that they make a mountain out of a molehill here. That GW has not explored the possibilities is really just evidence of GW's own laziness.
Oh, indeed.
Realistically, if such a thing were to be possible, there wouldn't even be a discernable difference in male or female post-augmentation. It requires no modelling differences at all - purely fluff.
Of course, even though I would support it if it were canon, it is not.*
Too me that Fabious has created a Partial Geneseed Female, makes it even more likely that there could be Female Astarte...
And everyone here has said these wouldn't be official Imperial Astartes, but and unsanctioned force created by a renegade magos. This doesn't make them any less loyal to the Imperium of course, but it does mean that they may be considered Heretical by them.
GodDamUser wrote: Too me that Fabious has created a Partial Geneseed Female, makes it even more likely that there could be Female Astarte...
And everyone here has said these wouldn't be official Imperial Astartes, but and unsanctioned force created by a renegade magos. This doesn't make them any less loyal to the Imperium of course, but it does mean that they may be considered Heretical by them.
See, I read it more as only a partial gene-seed can be manipulated sufficiently, instead of a full one.
The problem stems from trying to play off the lack of femarines as a CAN'T issue ("science") rather than a WON'T issue (culture). Here again, the contrast to the Sisters of Battle is useful - the prohibition on males in that case has nothing to do with biological maleness. Let's keep in mind that the Decree Passive neither created the SoB nor imposed a novel gender restriction. The institution not only already existed but was already exclusively female. In other words, the SoB exclude men because that's just the way they have always done things. (And the famous clause of the Decree Passive was certainly not a mistake but an intentional carve-out to specifically preserve the SoB.) But someone decided to "rationalize" the exclusively male SM ranks by appeal to fictional technosorcery, which in turn exists solely for the sake of that rationalization. It's a fluff tautology - there is no reason to accept it apart from the fact that it exists. And its existence is entirely and always provisional. So of course it's weak and unconvincing.
Wait does that mean you can have gland-hound space marines? How would that work? Would they be allowed to fight for the empire? ( Seems pretty simple actually... just dont put the parts of the gene-seed in that kills them XD Yeah a bit less powerful but it works )
So there is president for something of the sort?
I imagine a female space marine would look like Zarya or Hammer! Big with giant arms! but overall you can still tell what gender they are, the skeletal structure doesn't change ( as far as I know )
And even if it did.. rule of cool, lets face it, even if GW did clear the slate and introduce fem marines theres no way they would make them look manly, if so it would be the first time in any media ever. If they made an offical fem marine it would be hot as hell cause thats just how these things go ( Id actually prefure a juggernaut of a woman with arms like boulders! but alas this is not the world we live in, we are not in a time ware females get the veriaty of character designs available to men, chicks are either, hot, super hot or hot as hell. )
After-all didnt one of the Primearchs jokingly request a female primearch so the boys wouldnt squabble as much? Whats the point if she looked like a gorilla XD
DizzyStorey wrote: Wait does that mean you can have gland-hound space marines? How would that work? Would they be allowed to fight for the empire? ( Seems pretty simple actually... just dont put the parts of the gene-seed in that kills them XD Yeah a bit less powerful but it works )
So there is president for something of the sort?
These duders are made by a bad man, who experiments on people for fun and is over 10,000 years old
DizzyStorey wrote: Wait does that mean you can have gland-hound space marines? How would that work? Would they be allowed to fight for the empire? ( Seems pretty simple actually... just dont put the parts of the gene-seed in that kills them XD Yeah a bit less powerful but it works )
So there is president for something of the sort?
These duders are made by a bad man, who experiments on people for fun and is over 10,000 years old
Yeah but a partial gene-seeding sounds pretty simple for anyone who knows what they are doing ( Or are really good ) with using the gene-seed. Its a pretty good explainaway if somebody is asking too many questions. "Heretical copy of space marines, they used a partial gene-seed took out all the bits that make a chick croak and left in the bits that make em strong"
If somebody asks why woman? its easy "crashed on a backwater planet, locals were mostly woman so they used what they had, found an old STC and used its knowlage to get off the planet and help with the gene-seed tinkering" Nothing too complicated or over the top, Just a simple straight up explanation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Iv just been informed that Space marines can not only spit acid but also absorb memories through eating brains... why? Why did the emperor build them this way? Surely there was a better way to absorb memories than ripping the skull of a foe open and consuming the brain! Are they allowed to cook it first?!
DizzyStorey wrote: Iv just been informed that Space marines can not only spit acid but also absorb memories through eating brains... why? Why did the emperor build them this way? Surely there was a better way to absorb memories than ripping the skull of a foe open and consuming the brain! Are they allowed to cook it first?!
But that is where the mems are stored.. and no cooking it would damage the synapse, that they are chewing on =D
Dismissing your 'Amazon Spacemarines' is not all that ingenious. If you read the Fabius Bile book Primogenitor Bile has created augmented humans from Astartes geneseed, the leader of this bunch happens to be female.
This is a very good point. It is important to note though that Igori and the rest are not actual Astartes, but rather "Gland-Hounds".
Here's what I could get of the extract:
"Gland-hounds. The New Humanity, as designed by Fabius Bile. Stronger, faster, more aggressive than the brief sparks that sheltered in the shadow of the Imperium. The first generation had been born of partial gene-seed implantation. Those first few crude attempts had become more refined over time, as the master had devised his own, lesser form of gene-seed. One which was not so likely to kill its host out of hand. They came alert instantly. There was a disconcerting intensity to their blank gazes - as if he were some large bovid who had wandered unknowing into the midst of a carnosaur pack. It had been a long time since anything had looked at him that way, and he shivered in delight. 'They say, in the lands of milk and sorrow, that those pale echoes of our brothers now gone know no fear,' he said to Arrian. 'It saddens me to think of it .' As he spoke, one of hounds stepped forward, setting herself between them and the doorway beyond. She crossed her muscular arms, and gazed steadily at them. 'Igori,' Arrian said. There was an odd sort of respect in his tone, Oleander thought. He bridled at it. Arrian was free to consider the creature his equal, but Oleander was under no such obligation. 'You're new,' Oleander said , looking down at the woman - Igori, Arrian had called her. He sniffed, and grimaced. 'But I can tell you're one of his. I can smell it from here. ' Igori said nothing. Her face was square. It might as well have been chiselled out of marble. Everything about her was perfect. Too perfect, too symmetrical. As if she were nothing more than a machine of meat and muscle. "
As we see, certainly female. Certainly very powerful, easily a match for a Space Marines in strength and toughness. But it is important to note that even these Gland-Hounds are only borne of "partial gene-seed implantation", or Fabius' own "lesser form of gene-seed".
This lends credence to genetically augmented females being possible, as I have maintained alongside Ezra. As for them being actual Astartes? Not so.
@Ynneadwraith - I fully accept and return the apology. I understand that I argued for far longer than I probably should have, and that we are both free to interpret fluff as mutably as we each choose to. It is, as you said, one of 40k's very good factors. For me, I do support people's own creation of fluff, but for me, it rubs me up the wrong when when it counters what I see as outright statements, ie blue being blue, up being up, etc etc. Again, my apologies for dragging this out. I've taken a step back to avoid instigating much else.
For me, I have no intention of hounding anyone out. If OP was dead set on having female marines, and didn't actually care for established lore, I have nothing to say but go for it. It's only when this question is brought into lore forums, and directed as a "I like the lore but..." statement that rises a reaction. For me, I would expect to see actual lore discussed in this particular forum, and only for actual canon lore, with that being the only arbiter. As current lore stands, assuming it's immutable, female Space Marines are not possible. But if OP doesn't want to listen to lore, or they do believe in the mutability of that line, who am I to stop them, as a random person on the internet? My only real issue was that in a lore discussion, the lore itself was being ignored and seen as inappropriate in a lore discussion.
In response to your query of "Why is it that you feel so strongly about not having female Space Marines?", and "hasn't provided an explanation for why he deems that particular piece of fluff to be so important", it's just simple - I see that the lore is, without exceptional reason, immutable. I value the lore, and if it is immutable, like the statement of females not being able to be Space Marines, I'll default to the lore taking priority. Especially in a lore discussion. I feel strongly about it because I feel the lore to around the issue be immutable and of high priority in a lore discussion.
I hope that clears up the question.
Likewise thankyou for the considered response
Perhaps it will help to frame the discussion using something else from the fluff that is comparable, and that other people can possibly use as a bridge to relate to the situation with female Space Marines and why I think it's unfair and unjustified.
There is a statement within the 'lore' (5th ed. SM Codex) that states that no matter what other Space Marines do, no matter how hard they try, they will never be Ultramarines (or words to that effect). So, what that suggests is that no matter what you do to your dudes, no matter how successful your chosen chapter is, they will never be as good as Ultramarines. They will never be 'the genuine article'. Which is, quite frankly, a pile of horse sh*t.
However, it is an absolute statement in the lore, unless you want to go down the road of different bits of lore being more or less immutable than others.
How do you (not just you, but others reading this comment too) feel that your chosen Space Marines are outright stated to 'not be as good as the Ultramarines'. It's annoying isn't it? It's insulting, if anything. It is justifiably ignored.
Now, take that feeling and put it into the context of someone being told that no matter what they do their female genetically modified warriors that are 100% identical to Astartes aside from being female, can never genuinely be Astartes. It's exactly the same logical process, yet this particular statement is held up so strongly when the previous one is happily ignored.
Can you see why that is unfair? Can you see why that doesn't make sense?
Now. I don't mind if you feel like both statements are gospel, because they are both written down as statements of fact in the lore. However, when you get fluff topics about cool things Dark Angels have done, you don't get 10 pages of people stating 'yeah they're cool, better even, but they will never be Ultramarines'. And then justifying that stance by saying 'but it says so in the lore'.
The combination of those two points is why I am certain that people treat female Space Marines strangely compared to any other piece of fluff (or lore, if you see it that way). It's not just that some people take each thing written down as sacrosanct (because that's just how some people like to interpret it which is fine), but it's that so many people will specifically go out of their way to state again and again the equivalent of 'all those reasons they are cool is nice...but they will never be Ultramarines'.
That's why I keep asking why people feel so strongly about this particular piece of lore. Because there are other pieces of lore that actually effect more people that people don't give a toss about, and I don't think it's fair or logical.
Seriously GW basically just gave them a bunch of abilities that they thought would sound cool.
Why again are people so protective of this lore?
Because it's the lore and we don't want it changed? Did you miss everything that Manchu posted over the last two pages?
The problem is is 'because it's the lore and we don't want it changed' doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
I understand that it's a particular piece of lore that people feel strongly about. However, there are other statements in the lore that are equally as dismissive towards what some people want to do (my example of 'but they can never be Ultramarines' is a good one), that are routinely ignored.
In the light of that, a better explanation than 'because it's the lore' is needed to justify such a public outrage at what should be a very simple and low-key bending of the fluff. 'Ultramarines are the best Space Marines' is also the lore. How do people feel about that particular statement?
Watch out for conflating fact statements and value statements. The fluff is written from an in-universe POV for the sake of tongue-in-cheek/black humor. A statement like "UM wear blue armor," as a statement of fact, isn't meant to inspire the same kind of bemused skepticism as a value statement like "the Imperium of Man is eternal and invincible!" - obviously, if you took the latter as a literal fact, the basic dramatic premise of the setting would disappear. Quickjager gives a nice example - Ciaphas Cain is the Emp's finest, sorry Cato! "It's just a fact!"
And "we don't want people to change the setting we like" is a completely sufficient argument in this case. Again, the problem isn't actually the setting but rather the hamfisted attempt to justify the setting element in question by appeal to in-universe science rather than in-universe culture.
Watch out for conflating fact statements and value statements. The fluff is written from an in-universe POV for the sake of tongue-in-cheek/black humor. A statement like "UM wear blue armor," as a statement of fact, isn't meant to inspire the same kind of bemused skepticism as a value statement like "the Imperium of Man is eternal and invincible!" - obviously, if you took the latter as a literal fact, the basic dramatic premise of the setting would disappear. Quickjager gives a nice example - Ciaphas Cain is the Emp's finest, sorry Cato! "It's just a fact!"
And "we don't want people to change the setting we like" is a completely sufficient argument in this case. Again, the problem isn't actually the setting but rather the hamfisted attempt to justify the setting element in question by appeal to in-universe science rather than in-universe culture.
Ah, I see, so the statement that all Marines wish they were Ultramarines is intended to be tongue-in-cheek, rather than an outright statement of fact. Thanks, so we're a step closer to understanding why this particular piece of fluff is held to be immutable where others are not.
"We don't want people to change the setting we like" is completely sufficient argument for someone to want to keep their interpretation of the setting from changing. I'm not arguing against that in the slightest, and apologies if I've come across like I have been. I know people care about this universe to a near-irrational degree (I know, I'm one of them!), and just the fact that they care about something for no real reason is fine
What I I don't think either justifies or explains just why the community response regarding female Marines is so strong, compared to other similar statements.
Lets use your example of another fact-statement: Ultramarines are Blue.
Now, if I start a thread here on the Background forum stating that I have an idea for an army of Ultramarines that wear white armour, with a fluff explanation that their Captain's heraldic colours involved a white lion on a field of azure. Known to them as 'the Lion of Ultramar', the entire company was shocked and saddened by his death at the hands of a World Eaters champion. In deference to of their fallen hero, they repainted their armour in white and renamed their company 'The Lions of Ultramar' in his honour.
Now, I can pretty much guarantee that I will not have 10 pages and counting of discussion trying to justify my white Ultramarines to a reasonable percentage of the community who are stating 'but they're not Ultramarines because the lore says Ultramarines are blue'. Despite the fact that Ultramarines being blue is a significant feature of their lore. People might be thinking 'nah, you can't have white Ultramarines' and that's fine, but they won't spend 10 pages trying to convince me that white Ultramarines are a lore impossibility, stating that while my white Marines may well be 100% Ultramarine except the fact they're white, they're not actually Ultramarines because they're not blue, or saying 'why don't you just play White Scars if you want white Marines'.*
They might think it (which is absolutely fine and I don't in any way want to police the way people think about their own model of the 40k universe) but they won't defend it with the same kind of vehemence. Because it's routine and accepted to bend fact-statements about the 40k universe, provided you have a half-decent fluff explanation, for seemingly anything except female marines.
This is why I think the community's treatment of female Space Marines is odd, does not follow logic, just results on a lot of hurt feelings and animosity on both sides of the debate, and it's useful for people to sit down and reflect on why they get so annoyed about it.
*I'd even be happy to conduct an experiment on that in order to support my point. I'd be happy to post up a topic titled 'White Ultramarines' in Background, give my little fluff explanation and see what happens. Provided we can make it as unbiased as possible (probably meaning that no-one with a horse in this particular race is to post in it, unless anyone can think of another way of ensuring no-one skews the results).
Your main premise is, the female Space Marines concept is no different from any other deviation from official background material. You keep stating it as a question - why is the idea of female SM treated so differently? - but given that I comprehensively answered the question, at this point I am pretty sure you are being entirely rhetorical. In fact, I think you are now arguing that the notion of female Space Marines should be treated the same way as any other proposed deviation from published material.
But you are arguing in the face of reality here. Let's go back to OP's example of gorilla SM. Gorilla SM is just as bad as or worse than, in terms of not fitting the published material, female SM. Yet the former (probably) wouldn't produce reams of pushback because it is not code for judging/trolling/making fun of 40k fans. But the latter is exactly that. So what you are in effect arguing is that 40k fans should be cool with being trolled.
This is why I keep noting - come to the community with an awesome-looking converted army and an ethusiastic attitude and people will understand you are not trolling ... and, as if by magic, there will not be the same amount of pushback. Frontload a demonstration of sincerity. As opposed to - like in this case - frontloading judgementalism.
Ultramarines painted white would look like World Eaters, I would call the inquisition on them after such an event.
But people would ask a simple question.
Why do they have to be white? Why not middle eastern?
I desist.
But people wouldn't care much simply because Space marines already have the history of changing their paint job. They do it in fluff a odd amount depending on context. Crusades have entire companies from different chapters painting a Crusade color on their left arm in older fluff. Dark Angels have an entire company in a different color for the same reason. Raptors switched their entire color scheme. Raven Guard camoflauge, Black Templars arose from Imperial Fists because they painted their armor black.
Yaddayaddayadda.
It has precedent. After all its not like you took guilliman and went and said he declared fuchsia the color of the week for Ultramarines.
Manchu wrote: Your main premise is, the female Space Marines concept is no different from any other deviation from official background material. You keep stating it as a question - why is the idea of female SM treated so differently? - but given that I comprehensively answered the question, at this point I am pretty sure you are being entirely rhetorical. In fact, I think you are now arguing that the notion of female Space Marines should be treated the same way as any other proposed deviation from published material.
But you are arguing in the face of reality here. Let's go back to OP's example of gorilla SM. Gorilla SM is just as bad as or worse than, in terms of not fitting the published material, female SM. Yet the former (probably) wouldn't produce reams of pushback because it is not code for judging/trolling/making fun of 40k fans. But the latter is exactly that. So what you are in effect arguing is that 40k fans should be cool with being trolled.
This is why I keep noting - come to the community with an awesome-looking converted army and an ethusiastic attitude and people will understand you are not trolling ... and, as if by magic, there will not be the same amount of pushback. Frontload a demonstration of sincerity. As opposed to - like in this case - frontloading judgementalism.
Firstly the very concept of wanting female space marines for any reason, ( Think its cute? Think its cool? Want variation? Hell you saw some cool fan art that inspired you ) Than that should not be "code for trolling" The concept of liking female space marines should not be considered so ridiculous and insane that the only reason anyone could possible want it is to troll.
Now I wont deny ever trolling people, After seeing a sore spot that frustrates you in a community that frustrates you its hard not to pick at it and lash back, But if you do that in the past cause you get mad or frustrated or aggrivated that doesnt mean that you dont also like the idea or cant possibly be genuine. I made this post not to discuss space marines but to get constructive and fair feed back and help fixing up loose ends, not to face a wave of opposition and a hundread dudes trying to convince me why what i want is dumb and i should not want it. That wasnt the point of this post and as you can see iv started coming back less and less cause its gotten so far derailed and made into something its not.
Now i am very happy for the support iv recieved and Iam even happier about the people who have put there bias's or opinions aside to actually give me genuine information i can use and helped me decide which army is the coolest of the bunch.
So in the end, Yeah i poked at a nerve in the past cause I was mad but this is something I actually do care about reguardles of that. the two are not mutually exclusive, but that this was not the point of this discussion, a nice talk full of helpful information ware we leave our flag waving "defense of fluff" at the door.
And when you say if i made a beautifully converted army with polite enthusiasm id be met with possitivity? That is not at all true. I was on a forum the other day ware this guy was showing off frankly the prettiest made fem pace marine iv ever seen and the comments were things like "Looks good, now burn it" cause people could not let go of there hatred for it long enough to just admire the work of art. Or they would go onto paragraphs of informing him "why i dont support fem marines" sometimes a post just isnt about your opinions on the existence of fem marines and they just want to show there art or get some help justifying something, if dont want to justify it than dont post.
I hate this mentality of every disagreement or anyone saying or holding confrontational views is automatically a troll and thus should be disreguarded. Heres the thing, people have nuances, people are complicated.
DizzyStorey wrote: That wasnt the point of this post and as you can see iv started coming back less and less cause its gotten so far derailed and made into something its not.
The conversation moved on from femarines to theories about Gue'la. Then you came back into the thread to post this:
Ezra Tyrius wrote: Can we seriously not just agree to disagree, at this point? This discussion is going nowhere, and I doubt it's going to end well for any of us, or for this thread for that matter.
Personally, I'm going to stay in the 'Female Astartes aren't possible'-camp, for the reasons I've posted before; the rest of you, figure it out for your bloody selves.
If anyone still wants to discuss modelling ideas for female space marines or one of the other ideas, I'm all ears.
Apparently not.. cause agreeing to disagree does not result in the immediate death of all fem marine figs... I find people are too passionate and angry over this very concept to ever agree to disagree.
which is what rekindled talk about femarines. You are stirring the pot at the same time that you are complaining about it. This is exactly why the femarines concept is code for trolling. Again:
Manchu wrote: If you have the money and the time, you can make whatever army you like. But you already know that. So is it just a question of requiring some kind of approval from others? Or teasing them for withholding it? Seems pointless in either case.
Manchu wrote: Your main premise is, the female Space Marines concept is no different from any other deviation from official background material. You keep stating it as a question - why is the idea of female SM treated so differently? - but given that I comprehensively answered the question, at this point I am pretty sure you are being entirely rhetorical. In fact, I think you are now arguing that the notion of female Space Marines should be treated the same way as any other proposed deviation from published material.
But you are arguing in the face of reality here. Let's go back to OP's example of gorilla SM. Gorilla SM is just as bad as or worse than, in terms of not fitting the published material, female SM. Yet the former (probably) wouldn't produce reams of pushback because it is not code for judging/trolling/making fun of 40k fans. But the latter is exactly that. So what you are in effect arguing is that 40k fans should be cool with being trolled.
This is why I keep noting - come to the community with an awesome-looking converted army and an ethusiastic attitude and people will understand you are not trolling ... and, as if by magic, there will not be the same amount of pushback. Frontload a demonstration of sincerity. As opposed to - like in this case - frontloading judgementalism.
Firstly the very concept of wanting female space marines for any reason, ( Think its cute? Think its cool? Want variation? Hell you saw some cool fan art that inspired you ) Than that should not be "code for trolling" The concept of liking female space marines should not be considered so ridiculous and insane that the only reason anyone could possible want it is to troll.
Now I wont deny ever trolling people, After seeing a sore spot that frustrates you in a community that frustrates you its hard not to pick at it and lash back, But if you do that in the past cause you get mad or frustrated or aggrivated that doesnt mean that you dont also like the idea or cant possibly be genuine. I made this post not to discuss space marines but to get constructive and fair feed back and help fixing up loose ends, not to face a wave of opposition and a hundread dudes trying to convince me why what i want is dumb and i should not want it. That wasnt the point of this post and as you can see iv started coming back less and less cause its gotten so far derailed and made into something its not.
Now i am very happy for the support iv recieved and Iam even happier about the people who have put there bias's or opinions aside to actually give me genuine information i can use and helped me decide which army is the coolest of the bunch.
So in the end, Yeah i poked at a nerve in the past cause I was mad but this is something I actually do care about reguardles of that. the two are not mutually exclusive, but that this was not the point of this discussion, a nice talk full of helpful information ware we leave our flag waving "defense of fluff" at the door.
And when you say if i made a beautifully converted army with polite enthusiasm id be met with possitivity? That is not at all true. I was on a forum the other day ware this guy was showing off frankly the prettiest made fem pace marine iv ever seen and the comments were things like "Looks good, now burn it" cause people could not let go of there hatred for it long enough to just admire the work of art. Or they would go onto paragraphs of informing him "why i dont support fem marines" sometimes a post just isnt about your opinions on the existence of fem marines and they just want to show there art or get some help justifying something, if dont want to justify it than dont post.
I hate this mentality of every disagreement or anyone saying or holding confrontational views is automatically a troll and thus should be disreguarded. Heres the thing, people have nuances, people are complicated.
Not everyone automatically assumes someone is trolling, but when people post stuff like this:
DizzyStorey wrote: I am building a female space marine army for the soul purpose of pissing off butthurt fanboys. I love the warrior woman archetypes and I started looking into space marines, when I discovered that this was a point of outrage and fury within the community, So at that point my mind was made up! I had to do this!
Manchu wrote: Your main premise is, the female Space Marines concept is no different from any other deviation from official background material. You keep stating it as a question - why is the idea of female SM treated so differently? - but given that I comprehensively answered the question, at this point I am pretty sure you are being entirely rhetorical.
Please, I am not being rhetorical. The reason I keep repeating the question is because the order of the discussion has gone like this:
1. I hypothesise that female Space Marines are treated disproportionately severely by the community compared to other similar statements in the fluff. The only explanation I can think of for this is unconscious gender-bias because it involves phenomena that are hallmarks of gender-bias in wider culture (primarily discomfort around the notion of women being in similar positions of power, strength or legitimacy compared to men).
2. I have stated examples that support my hypothesis, and asked the community for logical criticisms of those examples and possible other hypotheses to explain the behaviour I am observing.
3. Members of the community have submitted their criticisms, and other potential hypotheses which I have in turn logically critiqued. I know anyone could be a dog on the internet, but I have been through significant education in the field of scientific critique of arguments. I understand that I myself have an unconscious bias towards wanting my own hypothesis to be correct, and have tried my utmost to be impartial in this logical critique.
4. As none of the alternative hypotheses posited so far have passed through that logical critique intact (although we have gained a significant number of useful insights), I have restated my question and asked the community for their ideas.
Now, I am human! I have got a bit heated at times in this argument which I'm sorry for! But I feel like my position still stands and I'm trying to be as objective as possible.
In fact, I think you are now arguing that the notion of female Space Marines should be treated the same way as any other proposed deviation from published material.
Perhaps I haven't been clear in my explanations, apologies. I'll describe my argument now.
1. I believe that female Space Marines should be treated no different to any other deviation from fluff of a similar magnitude.
2. With the help of people who have joined this discussion, I have attempted to define the parameters by which the magnitude of a piece of fluff is measured. So far, we have these:
- Significantly changes a faction's fluff to the point that it directly affects other people's armies (for instance, saying that Necrons don't exist)
- Fact-statement rather than value-statement
3. Female Space Marines does not appear to fit the criteria outlayed for a piece of fluff that should by those rules be deemed
4. Female Space Marines also do not appear to elicit the same response as other pieces of fluff that fit a similar profile (such as Ultramarines are blue)
5. So, it would logically follow that the passion by which people defend the immutability of female Space Marines is caused by something other than its importance to the rest of the setting. The only thing that I can think of is unconscious gender bias*.
So, I am arguing that female Space Marines should be treated exactly the same as other pieces of fluff that are similar to it judged by the criteria that we produce (in this instance, either to accept that it is mutable, or to uphold the ire with which this particular piece of fluff is defended for every post that bends the fluff).
But you are arguing in the face of reality here. Let's go back to OP's example of gorilla SM. Gorilla SM is just as bad as or worse than, in terms of not fitting the published material, female SM. Yet the former (probably) wouldn't produce reams of pushback because it is not code for judging/trolling/making fun of 40k fans. But the latter is exactly that. So what you are in effect arguing is that 40k fans should be cool with being trolled.
This is why I keep noting - come to the community with an awesome-looking converted army and an ethusiastic attitude and people will understand you are not trolling ... and, as if by magic, there will not be the same amount of pushback. Frontload a demonstration of sincerity. As opposed to - like in this case - frontloading judgementalism.
Well, that is the first possible explanation for the behaviour we have observed that holds water past the first logical critique.
So, just to make sure we have the hypothesis correct. You are stating that the strength with which people have attacked the idea of female Space Marines in this thread is due to its history as a tool for Trolls. I can see that being a possible explanation. This is is supported by the slightly confrontative tone taken by the OP regarding the subject, which may have primed people into thinking they were being trolled.
I would argue that when it became clear that DizzyStorey wasn't trolling (when she put significant effort into appeasing the fluff concerns of her dissenters, such as trying to find ways that fit with the pseudoscience technobabble of 40k) and apologised for her earlier confrontative tone, people should have relented and said it was ok to have female Astartes (as it would now be evident that she is not trolling). However, I definitely understand that when you're worked up about something it's really hard to cool down!
So, now we have two workable hypotheses which we can test against each other in as scientific a way as possible.
1. Female Space Marines are treated differently because of unconscious gender bias causing a more extreme response than is otherwise applied
2. Female Space Marines are treated differently because they are often used as a tool for Trolling, and there is no gender bias at play
How about this as an experiment? In a month's time when this has all passed over, I will post three topics in the Background forum. The first will be titled 'Female Space Marines', wherein I will state my desire to make an army of female Space Marines, provide a plea that I am not trolling, provide a brief fluff explanation for how it could happen, and ask whether I should do it. The second will be titled 'White Ultramarines', wherein I will state my desire to make an army of white Ultramarines, provide a plea that I am not trolling, provide a brief fluff explanation for how it could happen, and ask whether I should do it. The third will be titled 'Chaos Eldar', wherein I will state my desire to make an army of Chaos Eldar, provide a plea that I am not trolling, provide a brief fluff explanation for how it could happen, and ask whether I should do it.
Do you agree that 'Space Marines are male' and 'Ultramarines are blue' are two statements that are comparable pieces of fluff using the criteria identified above (fact-statements that will have a non-effect on other people's armies)? If not, why do you think they are not comparable so we might be able to find a piece of fluff that is better-comparable?
The third option is to try and control for the effects of gender-bias. 'Chaos Eldar' are a similarly controversial subject to female Space Marines, but lack the potential gender-bias, and will be useful as a control.
This actually gets me on to why I keep pressing this subject, and why I am absolutely not being rhetorical or arguing for argument's sake. I think it would be a very good thing if this behaviour would stop, or at least be reduced. Regardless of whether the explanation is due to gender-bias or symbol-of-trolling, it would be beneficial to expose what the motivations for such ire are to the community so they can react in an informed way. For instance, if the former is the case, then it would genuinely help the world be a better place if people (including myself) recognised their actions might be affected by gender-bias and made an effort to avoid it.
People like DizzyStorey who felt attacked would feel more welcome and perhaps stay on to be a valued member of this excellent community.
People who might otherwise have got really angry about it would feel less stressed about it, and perhaps not end up with animosity between people who have no real reason to argue.
It would be beneficial for everyone, and actually help to expand the community rather than diminish it.
If the main reasoning behind it is symbol-of-trolling, then the response is exactly the same. Everyone knows the worst possible thing you can do to a troll is to feed it. If DizzyStorey genuinely was a troll (which I really don't believe she is, as she has apologised for her tone, sought to make the fluff work with her idea, and generally acted in a reasonable manner past her first few initial posts), she would be delighted by the outrage it has caused.
However, if people recognised that they might be being baited into something, they might not post in which case the troll gets bored and moves somewhere else.
I hope that helps explain things in a clear and (admittedly not very) concise way. If you think I'm wrong about a particular thing, or have got my thoughts twisted somehow, I'd welcome the discussion of how
Manchu wrote: Your main premise is, the female Space Marines concept is no different from any other deviation from official background material. You keep stating it as a question - why is the idea of female SM treated so differently? - but given that I comprehensively answered the question, at this point I am pretty sure you are being entirely rhetorical. In fact, I think you are now arguing that the notion of female Space Marines should be treated the same way as any other proposed deviation from published material.
But you are arguing in the face of reality here. Let's go back to OP's example of gorilla SM. Gorilla SM is just as bad as or worse than, in terms of not fitting the published material, female SM. Yet the former (probably) wouldn't produce reams of pushback because it is not code for judging/trolling/making fun of 40k fans. But the latter is exactly that. So what you are in effect arguing is that 40k fans should be cool with being trolled.
This is why I keep noting - come to the community with an awesome-looking converted army and an ethusiastic attitude and people will understand you are not trolling ... and, as if by magic, there will not be the same amount of pushback. Frontload a demonstration of sincerity. As opposed to - like in this case - frontloading judgementalism.
Firstly the very concept of wanting female space marines for any reason, ( Think its cute? Think its cool? Want variation? Hell you saw some cool fan art that inspired you ) Than that should not be "code for trolling" The concept of liking female space marines should not be considered so ridiculous and insane that the only reason anyone could possible want it is to troll.
Now I wont deny ever trolling people, After seeing a sore spot that frustrates you in a community that frustrates you its hard not to pick at it and lash back, But if you do that in the past cause you get mad or frustrated or aggrivated that doesnt mean that you dont also like the idea or cant possibly be genuine. I made this post not to discuss space marines but to get constructive and fair feed back and help fixing up loose ends, not to face a wave of opposition and a hundread dudes trying to convince me why what i want is dumb and i should not want it. That wasnt the point of this post and as you can see iv started coming back less and less cause its gotten so far derailed and made into something its not.
Now i am very happy for the support iv recieved and Iam even happier about the people who have put there bias's or opinions aside to actually give me genuine information i can use and helped me decide which army is the coolest of the bunch.
So in the end, Yeah i poked at a nerve in the past cause I was mad but this is something I actually do care about reguardles of that. the two are not mutually exclusive, but that this was not the point of this discussion, a nice talk full of helpful information ware we leave our flag waving "defense of fluff" at the door.
And when you say if i made a beautifully converted army with polite enthusiasm id be met with possitivity? That is not at all true. I was on a forum the other day ware this guy was showing off frankly the prettiest made fem pace marine iv ever seen and the comments were things like "Looks good, now burn it" cause people could not let go of there hatred for it long enough to just admire the work of art. Or they would go onto paragraphs of informing him "why i dont support fem marines" sometimes a post just isnt about your opinions on the existence of fem marines and they just want to show there art or get some help justifying something, if dont want to justify it than dont post.
I hate this mentality of every disagreement or anyone saying or holding confrontational views is automatically a troll and thus should be disreguarded. Heres the thing, people have nuances, people are complicated.
Not everyone automatically assumes someone is trolling, but when people post stuff like this:
DizzyStorey wrote: I am building a female space marine army for the soul purpose of pissing off butthurt fanboys. I love the warrior woman archetypes and I started looking into space marines, when I discovered that this was a point of outrage and fury within the community, So at that point my mind was made up! I had to do this!
people will start to think you're trolling.
We have to acknowledge that you're right in this instance. I do believe that people got the initial impression that she may have been trolling.
However, personally I don't think that explanation works fully. After she apologised for the tone of her statements in the OP, and made a concerted effort to make her fluff fit other people's interpretations of the 40k universe, I feel it should have been evident to anyone looking on that she was not a troll.
Unfortunately, at that point she was still told repeatedly that 'she could have genetically modified women, but they would never be Space Marines'. That suggests that there is something more than 'we thought she was a troll' behind the strength with which people reject the notion of female Space Marines.
Furthermore, that explanation doesn't quite gel with this experience from the same quote:
Spoiler:
And when you say if i made a beautifully converted army with polite enthusiasm id be met with possitivity? That is not at all true. I was on a forum the other day ware this guy was showing off frankly the prettiest made fem pace marine iv ever seen and the comments were things like "Looks good, now burn it" cause people could not let go of there hatred for it long enough to just admire the work of art.
Yeah, the fervency of the opposition honestly has nothing to do with "people be trolling". People troll with "SPESS MARINES HAV SPESS SECKS!" threads all the time, but those threads die down very quickly, and never get to the vehemence of a Female Space Marines thread.
The femarine concept generates more pushback than other proposed deviations from the published fluff. That isn't your hypothesis - that is the premise assumed by your actual hypothesis, which is: The femarine concept generates more pushback than other proposed deviations from the published fluff because there is a sexist bias among 40k fans against that concept.
You have not demonstrated that your hypothesis is sound. Instead, you begin by assuming it is true and challenging others to disprove it by giving an examples of other proposed deviation from the published fluff that would generate as much or more pushback.
This is in effect disingenuous because, as explained above, your initial premise is that the femarine concept generates more pushback than other proposed deviations from the published fluff. Furthermore, the premise is not really even in dispute. Most people would agree, the femarine concept does in fact generate the most pushback.
The genuine issue is why? Your claim is, it is because 40k fans (or at least those posting on message boards) are sexists. My claim is, it is because the femarine concept has been widely used (it cannot be emphasized enough, including ITT) to make fun of, troll, and judge 40k fans.
Melissia wrote: People troll with "SPESS MARINES HAV SPESS SECKS!" threads all the time, but those threads die down very quickly, and never get to the vehemence of a Female Space Marines thread.
People make fun of nerds all the time. The difference with this specific example of making fun of nerds is, it ties into a larger mainstream social trend of self-righteously declaring that anything and everything is sexist or racist, etc. In this specific case, it is not just a case of trolling (which is generally just done for the sake of the joy of hurting someone else's feelings) but also under the cover of being a real and serious social issue that distinguishes the rational, noble progressives from the filthy, degenerate bigots. It is in fact the exact same thing that nerds are used to in day-to-day life: mainstream people saying "we are normal and right and moral whereas you are terrible and sick and foolish" ... well, the terrible, sick, foolish nerds went off into their own space and made things like 40k which eventually became profitable enough to attract the interests of the kind of people who marginalized the nerds in the first place.
The femarine concept generates more pushback than other proposed deviations from the published fluff. That isn't your hypothesis - that is the premise assumed by your actual hypothesis, which is:
The femarine concept inspires more pushback than other proposed deviations from the published fluff because there is a sexist bias among 40k fans against that concept.
Please, that is not the case. I implore you. Myself and a number of others have provided examples where femmarines have generated a massive pushback where other similar breaks in fluff have not (of which this thread is only one). That is the hypothesis: that femmarines are treated differently from other fluff statements that are similar.
Gender-bias is one possible explanation. Apologies, I should have made that clearer.
You have not demonstrated that hypothesis. Instead, you begin by assuming it is true and challenging others to disprove it by giving an example of another proposed deviation from the published fluff that generates as much or more pushback.
Please, I have not assumed it is true. I have stated constantly that it is the only explanation that I can think of to explain it that stands up to logical criticism using the criteria that we have identified. As it is an unpleasant thing and I don't want it to be true, I have implored other people of the community consistently to provide me with another explanation that stands up to a similar amount of criticism based on the observed behaviour.
The first idea that has been posited that stands up to the first pass of logical criticism is the 'symbol-of-trolling' idea.
I'm trying to prove that they are treated differently as a first step. I think you yourself do understand that they are treated differently, by asserting that it's due to trolling rather than trying to claim that they're treated the same (although correct me if I'm wrong).
How else am I supposed to provide evidence for my claim other than try to show that other pieces of fluff that meet the same criteria are treated differently? That's how the scientific method works:
1. I posit a statement that may or not be false
2. Evidence is posted (by me) that supports the notion that the statement is true (anecdotes from my fellow dakka users regarding their experience of femmarine posts related to other posts such as male SoB)
3. We ask for evidence to disprove our theory. So far, we have been provided with a number of other hypotheses, but I have yet to hear from anyone who has provided a similar anecdote about how they came across a femmarine thread that was treated the same as any other similar bending of the fluff. We have had a lot of statements of 'if it were done this way, I would be fine with it', but that is not nearly as strong of a statement as it actually having happened.
So, at this point, the 'femmarines are treated differently' appears to be the likely outcome, but we will need more evidence to persuade people that it is true.
The genuine issue is why? Your claim is, it is because 40k fans (or at least those posting on message boards) are sexists. My claim is, it is because the femarine concept has been widely used (it cannot be emphasized enough, including ITT) to make fun of, troll, and judge 40k fans.
I understand your claim, and that is why I formulated our little experiment as I did. Would you agree that it would help shed light onto the subject?
If all 3 threads I post garner the same response, then that would suggest that femmarines aren't treated differently and I am proved wrong. I am happy to be proved wrong.
If the Chaos Eldar and femmarines threads get hate, but the white Ultramarines don't then that would suggest that the hate is caused by the subject being something that is already a hot topic
If the femmarines thread gets hate, but the Chaos Eldar and the white Ultramarines threads don't, that would suggest that it is likely to be unconscious gender bias (that is present in everyone, I'm not singling out 40k fans here)
Would you agree that that is a good way to actually test our hypotheses?
Manchu wrote: Again - I don't dispute that the femarine concept generates the most pushback. I don't see a reason to try and test this.
Why don't you see a reason to try and test why that is the case?
There is a possibility that people are unconsciously acting in a way that is harmful to this community, and generally reprehensible (as many people do everywhere, not just in nerd culture or even 40k specifically). As a mod who is in some way responsible for how people behave in this place, I would think that you would be very happy for this to be tested (especially seeing as I'll be doing all the legwork for it). Especially especially seeing as it may provide the evidence you need to prove that this is all a reaction to perceived trolling, and that I am wrong in suggesting that people are unwittingly behaving in a sexist manner, vindicating both yourself and others.
I don't want to be pushy or anything, but this is the proverbial 'put your money where your mouth is'.
Have you considered the possibility that the reason that Female Space Marines appear to get so much more pushback is not because people disagree with them more... but because people defend them more?
A lot of times in this thread, the phrase 'it's weird that people will spend 7 pages telling someone that Female Space Marines are impossible' has been used. But that isn't the case. This thread didn't get to 7 pages just because of people disliking the idea, but because there was a discussion between people who do agree with them and those who don't.
To clarify the point I'm trying to make, consider other threads about potentially lore-breaking army backgrounds. For example, let's say I created a Space Marine army background that reads something like: "And these guys are BFF's with everyone in the Imperium, get all the best gear, are supreme close combat specialists, can use Chaos weapons without being tainted, are better psykers than Grey Knights and Thousand Sons, better strategists than the Ultramarines, etcetera etcetera." In other words, a Chapter that's the bestest at everything always.
Usually, such a thread will get a page's worth of comments as to why said background sucks (usually due to reasons of being over-the-top Mary Sue-ish), with some pointers on how to improve it if the posters feel generous that day. The OP of such a thread will then either rage against his critics and attempt to defend his ideas, or take some of the advice given, hoping to improve his army's story, or something else altogether.
End result? Maybe 2-3 pages of actual thread.
Compare that to Female Space Marine threads, who easily get to 10 pages of thread through the discussion of whether or not it's possible alone.
Another controversial idea OP raised is a Gue'la being in command of Tau. To me, this is a very interesting point - but I think this is pretty unlikely/unsupported by existing fluff. But no one cares enough about this proposed fluff divergence to say, well it could happen because of X or because of Y or because of Z. The reason is, I think, it doesn't tie to some mainstream cultural trend of siting in moral judgment of easy targets (i.e., nerds - people who are already traditional social outcasts).
A test to confirm (1) doesn't have anything to do with (2).
That's why I have made the experiment so that we can compare 3 different concepts that should have different levels of pushback based on what causes it. I thought I'd explained that here:
If all 3 threads I post garner the same response, then that would suggest that femmarines aren't treated differently and I am proved wrong. I am happy to be proved wrong.
If the Chaos Eldar and femmarines threads get hate, but the white Ultramarines don't then that would suggest that the hate is caused by the subject being something that is already a hot topic
If the femmarines thread gets hate, but the Chaos Eldar and the white Ultramarines threads don't, that would suggest that it is likely to be unconscious gender bias (that is present in everyone, I'm not singling out 40k fans here)
I know it's the whole 'anyone can be a dog on the internet' thing, but I've worked as a researcher before so I understand how to construct experiments to point us towards potential explanations for behaviour.
Do you think that it doesn't work to tease that out at least in some way can you think of another experiment that would better?
Ezra Tyrius wrote: Have you considered the possibility that the reason that Female Space Marines appear to get so much more pushback is not because people disagree with them more... but because people defend them more?
A lot of times in this thread, the phrase 'it's weird that people will spend 7 pages telling someone that Female Space Marines are impossible' has been used. But that isn't the case. This thread didn't get to 7 pages just because of people disliking the idea, but because there was a discussion between people who do agree with them and those who don't.
.
Ah thankyou that's a really valuable insight. So, how do we control for that in the experiment?
There's two options here. The first is not to defend at all and count how many people say 'I'd be happy with that' as opposed to 'you can't do that'. The second is to argue back against each of them an equal amount and see which discussion goes on the furthest.
I believe that the second option would be more valuable as it would demonstrate better the strength of people's convictions, rather than a straight poll of who's ok with something and who's not (which we can do at the same time with a little poll at the top of the thread).
I don't think measuring how much pushback an idea gets explains why the idea gets pushback. In other words, I don't think your proposed explanations for the various results are necessarily valid. I think they are assumptions. I think the whole proposal is an example of begging the question under the cover of "science."
I am not sure how to go about demonstrating that the hypothesis "40k fans push back against the femarine concept because they are sexists" is true.
Another controversial idea OP raised is a Gue'la being in command of Tau. To me, this is a very interesting point - but I think this is pretty unlikely/unsupported by existing fluff. But no one cares enough about this proposed fluff divergence to say, well it could happen because of X or because of Y or because of Z. The reason is, I think, it doesn't tie to some mainstream cultural trend of siting in moral judgment of easy targets (i.e., nerds - people who are already traditional social outcasts).
Please, what on earth have I said that makes you think I'm in any way sitting on moral judgement of easy targets? That's an assumption you've made as to my motivations when I have clearly stated a number of times that I am doing this because I don't want people to be dicks to each other, especially if they don't realise it. That goes for whether they're nerds or not. I'm not attacking nerd-dom with this. I'm not attacking anyone with this. I'm just suggesting that something unpleasant might be going on without people realising it and might actually be able to make everyone's life less stressed!
Apologies if I lost my cool with that response, I must admit I found it insulting that someone thinks that I am picking on people who are easy targets. I can assure you 100% that that is not the case and couldn't be further from the truth. Please believe me.
it could happen because of X or because of Y or because of Z
That's why I'm proposing an experiment to try and find out whether X is caused by Y or Z or a bit of both or neither. An experiment which for some reason you were opposed to even taking place, and then I assume were ok with taking place but took issue with my method when I had explained how my method works in the comment you were replying to.
Sorry for the confusion! I don't think you personally are here to judge or make fun of nerds (you say you are a nerd, I don't disbelieve it). Rather - it's my impression that the whole phenomenon of arguing about femarines exists because there is a larger phenomenon of picking on nerds, including by castigating nerds as sexists and racists because of the fiction we like.
Manchu wrote: I don't think measuring how much pushback an idea gets explains why the idea gets pushback. In other words, I don't think your proposed explanations for the various results are necessarily valid. I think they are assumptions. I think the whole proposal is an example of begging the question under the cover of "science."
I am not sure how to go about demonstrating that the hypothesis "40k fans push back against the femarine concept because they are sexists" is true.
Perhaps it would help to explain the logic by which I will draw the strength of each conclusion from the data potentially encountered (which is based on a scientific method frequently used in peer-reviewed psychology journals, one of which I am published in).
The topic 'White Ultramarines' carries no pre-existing history as a tool for trolling. By comparing it to 'Female Space Marines' which is a similar statement in the fluff, we can compare what the potential effect of something being a previous tool for trolling is on people's reactions.
The topic 'Female Space Marines' is a controversial topic which involves phenomena that through other scientific research has been related to gender-bias (women being in similar positions of power, strength or legitimacy compared to men). 'Chaos Eldar' is a subject that is also controversial, but has no such connotations or relationship with gender. By comparing these two, we can compare what the potential effect of something that involves gender compared to something that doesn't.
Can you see how the method works? It's the basis of the vast majority of behavioural research, and has been accepted by peer-reviewed journals since the dawn of psychological research. Compare X against Y (where Y differs on one key aspect, Z) and you can reliably suggest that the differences are related to Z (unless someone can come up with a meaningful uncontrolled variable. One of which Ezra has already pointed out, which we have attempted to control for by standardising the level of argument.
Now, I won't assume that this will 'prove' anything. It's not nearly a large enough sample for that level of certainty. However, it will provide additional evidence towards whichever claim the data supports.
DizzyStorey wrote: That wasnt the point of this post and as you can see iv started coming back less and less cause its gotten so far derailed and made into something its not.
The conversation moved on from femarines to theories about Gue'la. Then you came back into the thread to post this:
Ezra Tyrius wrote: Can we seriously not just agree to disagree, at this point? This discussion is going nowhere, and I doubt it's going to end well for any of us, or for this thread for that matter.
Personally, I'm going to stay in the 'Female Astartes aren't possible'-camp, for the reasons I've posted before; the rest of you, figure it out for your bloody selves.
If anyone still wants to discuss modelling ideas for female space marines or one of the other ideas, I'm all ears.
Apparently not.. cause agreeing to disagree does not result in the immediate death of all fem marine figs... I find people are too passionate and angry over this very concept to ever agree to disagree.
which is what rekindled talk about femarines. You are stirring the pot at the same time that you are complaining about it. This is exactly why the femarines concept is code for trolling. Again:
Manchu wrote: If you have the money and the time, you can make whatever army you like. But you already know that. So is it just a question of requiring some kind of approval from others? Or teasing them for withholding it? Seems pointless in either case.
Ya see I didnt realize the conversation had moved on as I was about 2 pages behind the rest of the conversation, while catching up I saw something I wanted to respond too. If I had known the topic was over I would have left it be.
As you can see I am clearly discouraging the continuation of the topic and thus desiring to continue it would seem quite counter productive would it now?
And again, I do not believe having an opinion about something even if it starts an arguement is "Trolling" Its simply holding an unpopular opinion.
Manchu wrote: Sorry for the confusion! I don't think you personally are here to judge or make fun of nerds (you say you are a nerd, I don't disbelieve it). Rather - it's my impression that the whole phenomenon of arguing about femarines exists because there is a larger phenomenon of picking on nerds, including by castigating nerds as sexists and racists because of the fiction we like.
Ah I see, no worries
I'm this gakky about gender bias if I see it in non-nerds too! Not just gender bias either, in case you think I'm some sort of blind crusader. I'm like this whenever I encounter something where I think someone's being unfair for no good reason (most likely unintentionally, I don't think anyone here's being intentionally horrible).
I understand that there is a wider phenomenon of people picking on nerds (which has only got worse now that 'geek is chic' so people are encroaching on areas which were once free of such judgement). I just want that lack of judgement to be as wide-reaching as possible, so if there's something that might be in the way of that (or might not!) I'd like to explore it
If the femmarines thread gets hate, but the Chaos Eldar and the white Ultramarines threads don't, that would suggest that it is likely to be unconscious gender bias
Can see you why your proposal amounts to begging the question?
Just to demonstrate that I understand your methodology (because I get the impression you think otherwise): Topics A and B are both controversial but only Topic A has to do with gender. If Topic A has more pushback than Topic B then it must be because Topic A involves gender.
The issue is, there is no disagreement that the topic is either (a) more controversial or (b) more controversial because gender is involved.
The actual controversy is whether there is more pushback because the people pushing back are sexists or for some other reason ... such as, the people pushing back recognize the topic as part of a larger hostile framework. The proposed methodology cannot test for this.
DizzyStorey wrote: while catching up I saw something I wanted to respond too
And the thing you wanted to respond to is the same topic that you also say you don't want others to continue talking about.
DizzyStorey wrote: I do not believe having an opinion about something even if it starts an arguement is "Trolling" Its simply holding an unpopular opinion.
I agree with that. Stating an unpopular opinion is not trolling by itself. Stating a popular opinion for "the sole purpose of pissing off the butthurt fanboys" is by definition trolling, however.
Manchu wrote: Your main premise is, the female Space Marines concept is no different from any other deviation from official background material. You keep stating it as a question - why is the idea of female SM treated so differently? - but given that I comprehensively answered the question, at this point I am pretty sure you are being entirely rhetorical. In fact, I think you are now arguing that the notion of female Space Marines should be treated the same way as any other proposed deviation from published material.
But you are arguing in the face of reality here. Let's go back to OP's example of gorilla SM. Gorilla SM is just as bad as or worse than, in terms of not fitting the published material, female SM. Yet the former (probably) wouldn't produce reams of pushback because it is not code for judging/trolling/making fun of 40k fans. But the latter is exactly that. So what you are in effect arguing is that 40k fans should be cool with being trolled.
This is why I keep noting - come to the community with an awesome-looking converted army and an ethusiastic attitude and people will understand you are not trolling ... and, as if by magic, there will not be the same amount of pushback. Frontload a demonstration of sincerity. As opposed to - like in this case - frontloading judgementalism.
Firstly the very concept of wanting female space marines for any reason, ( Think its cute? Think its cool? Want variation? Hell you saw some cool fan art that inspired you ) Than that should not be "code for trolling" The concept of liking female space marines should not be considered so ridiculous and insane that the only reason anyone could possible want it is to troll.
Now I wont deny ever trolling people, After seeing a sore spot that frustrates you in a community that frustrates you its hard not to pick at it and lash back, But if you do that in the past cause you get mad or frustrated or aggrivated that doesnt mean that you dont also like the idea or cant possibly be genuine. I made this post not to discuss space marines but to get constructive and fair feed back and help fixing up loose ends, not to face a wave of opposition and a hundread dudes trying to convince me why what i want is dumb and i should not want it. That wasnt the point of this post and as you can see iv started coming back less and less cause its gotten so far derailed and made into something its not.
Now i am very happy for the support iv recieved and Iam even happier about the people who have put there bias's or opinions aside to actually give me genuine information i can use and helped me decide which army is the coolest of the bunch.
So in the end, Yeah i poked at a nerve in the past cause I was mad but this is something I actually do care about reguardles of that. the two are not mutually exclusive, but that this was not the point of this discussion, a nice talk full of helpful information ware we leave our flag waving "defense of fluff" at the door.
And when you say if i made a beautifully converted army with polite enthusiasm id be met with possitivity? That is not at all true. I was on a forum the other day ware this guy was showing off frankly the prettiest made fem pace marine iv ever seen and the comments were things like "Looks good, now burn it" cause people could not let go of there hatred for it long enough to just admire the work of art. Or they would go onto paragraphs of informing him "why i dont support fem marines" sometimes a post just isnt about your opinions on the existence of fem marines and they just want to show there art or get some help justifying something, if dont want to justify it than dont post.
I hate this mentality of every disagreement or anyone saying or holding confrontational views is automatically a troll and thus should be disreguarded. Heres the thing, people have nuances, people are complicated.
Not everyone automatically assumes someone is trolling, but when people post stuff like this:
DizzyStorey wrote: I am building a female space marine army for the soul purpose of pissing off butthurt fanboys. I love the warrior woman archetypes and I started looking into space marines, when I discovered that this was a point of outrage and fury within the community, So at that point my mind was made up! I had to do this!
people will start to think you're trolling.
Hinde-sight is sorta 20-20, I was mad at wanted to push buttons. Doesnt mean I cant try to move on and calm down later. I didnt figure id be sticking around so I wanted to go out with a double middle finger to people who I was frustrated with. But I changed my mind the more I talked to individuals who were polite and nice.
DizzyStorey wrote: Doesnt mean I cant try to move on and calm down later.
Good point. So what do you think about this issue of Tau-supremacy? I think it is heavily implied by the fluff - if not outright stated because making it explicit would ruin the tongue-in-cheek propaganda style of 40k fluff, including Tau fluff. But one of the biggest indications is that the structure of Tau society itself places Ethereals at the top, unquestionably. The whole premise of Tau society is that Ethereals must be in charge. And Ethereals are only and always Tau. No non-Tau can ever be promoted to the "rank" of Ethereal because it isn't a rank - it is a social and racial caste. In other words, the most fundamental principle of Tau civilization is actually a matter of race.
Also I am not sure iv said this yet but I am sorry for being abrasive and annoying in earlier posts. I understand it hurt my credibility for all future discussions but I was frustrated and I am sure all of you here who have spoke to me in privet know I am just passionate and very frustrated right now.
So yeah.. Sorry...
DizzyStorey wrote: Doesnt mean I cant try to move on and calm down later.
Good point. So what do you think about this issue of Tau-supremacy? I think it is heavily implied by the fluff - if not outright stated because making it explicit would ruin the tongue-in-cheek propaganda style of 40k fluff, including Tau fluff. But one of the biggest indications is that the structure of Tau society itself places Ethereals at the top, unquestionably. The whole premise of Tau society is that Ethereals must be in charge. And Ethereals are only and always Tau. No non-Tau can ever be promoted to the "rank" of Ethereal because it isn't a rank - it is a social and racial caste.
I believe the Tau are complicated. I think they believe the Ethereals are the only ones capable of bringing the greater good but that if you agree with them you can be assigned a place within the empire ( under the ethereals of course ) ware you are free to progress and prove yourselves worthy.
Just to demonstrate that I understand your suggestion (because I get the impression you think otherwise): Topics A and B are both controversial but only Topic A has to do with gender. If Topic A has more pushback than Topic B then it must be because Topic A involves gender.
The issue is, there is no disagreement that the topic is either (a) more controversial or (b) more controversial because gender is involved.
Agreed, we cannot completely isolate the cause. However, through this extensive debate, we have come down to two possible explanations of the behaviour that stand up to logical scrutiny and fit the anecdotes we have heard of so far: gender-bias, and symbol-of trolling.
As a psychological researcher, I definitely understand fully that we cannot say "Topics A and B are both controversial but only Topic A has to do with gender. If Topic A has more pushback than Topic B then it must be because Topic A involves gender"
However, what we can say is: "Topics A and B are both controversial but only topic A has to do with gender. If Topic A has more pushback than Topic B then it is probably something to do with gender, seeing as that is the main difference between them, in the absence of another explanation that fits the observed data better".
Now, if we repeat that in an experiment of two halves, one for 'gender' and one for 'trolling', and then compare the two against each other we can find out which variable potentially has the greater effect (again, providing no-one can come up with an uncontrolled variable that explains the differences better). This is the basis of nearly all psychological research.
There are statistical packages I can put this through as well that will estimate the validity of the data we find, again widely used in psychological research to make sure we're not clutching at numbers that are insignificant.
The actual controversy is whether there is more pushback because the people pushing back are sexists or for some other reason ... such as, the people pushing back recognize the topic as part of a larger hostile framework. The proposed methodology cannot test for this.
I think I understand what you're getting at. 'Female Space Marines' is a symbol for trolling, but none of the others are. So, in order to control for that variable and isolate that as a cause, we need to find another topic that is also a symbol for trolling, is a similar (to say minor) bending of the fluff, and could also conceivably be a genuine request (so I can write about it being genuine).
As a researcher, I can state that the experiment will still function without this (that's what the Chaos Eldar thread is there to control for). However, finding another subject that is similar to female Space Marines in the 'history for trolling' department would help make the results stronger.
This is where I genuinely need your unadulterated help. I can't think of something at the moment, and I will undertake the experiment with or without it (please don't lock the threads!), but if you could help me find something that fits then it will help assuage your fears over the experiment design.
Manchu wrote: People make fun of nerds all the time. The difference with this specific example of making fun of nerds is, it ties into a larger mainstream social trend of self-righteously declaring that anything and everything is sexist or racist, etc. In this specific case, it is not just a case of trolling (which is generally just done for the sake of the joy of hurting someone else's feelings) but also under the cover of being a real and serious social issue that distinguishes the rational, noble progressives from the filthy, degenerate bigots. It is in fact the exact same thing that nerds are used to in day-to-day life: mainstream people saying "we are normal and right and moral whereas you are terrible and sick and foolish" ... well, the terrible, sick, foolish nerds went off into their own space and made things like 40k which eventually became profitable enough to attract the interests of the kind of people who marginalized the nerds in the first place.
Oh please, enough with this silly victim complex. 'Evil feminists try to oppress the poor nerds.' Utterly laughable. When a large number of people claim that something is sexist or racist, 98,5% of the time it is because it is sexist or racist, not because they're trolling. Gender representation in 40K is gak, and yes, it is kinda sexist. This does not mean that liking 40K makes you sexist, but denying that there is a problem probably does.
Manchu wrote: So what do you think about this issue of Tau-supremacy? I think it is heavily implied by the fluff - if not outright stated because making it explicit would ruin the tongue-in-cheek propaganda style of 40k fluff, including Tau fluff. But one of the biggest indications is that the structure of Tau society itself places Ethereals at the top, unquestionably. The whole premise of Tau society is that Ethereals must be in charge. And Ethereals are only and always Tau. No non-Tau can ever be promoted to the "rank" of Ethereal because it isn't a rank - it is a social and racial caste. In other words, the most fundamental principle of Tau civilization is actually a matter of race.
As something other than scientifically testing the causes of femmarine hate, I absolutely love the sort of re-casting of the Tau as a super-Orwellian state, with all the shiny stuff about the 'greater good' in the fluff being about as real as the propaganda that comes out of North Korea. Fits much nicer in with the grimdark rest of the universe that even the 'good guys' of the galaxy are worse than the government in 1984.
If that's how it actually is, I'd imagine that any Gue'vesa that's promoted to any rank higher than 'below the Tau castes' would be done purely as a pawn for propaganda purposes, or as a tool to get one over on your political allies.
Ooh, I would absolutely utterly love to read a Tau novel based on things like life in Soviet Russia or North Korea, where everything seems shiny on the outside but if you look too closely you get watched like a hawk by the secret police, and perhaps disappear into the back of a black Devilfish never to be seen again.
It could be done from the perspective of someone who's escaped that oppressive regime to the assumed safety of the Enclaves (which depending on how grimdark you want it to be could be better or just as bad...)
Manchu wrote: People make fun of nerds all the time. The difference with this specific example of making fun of nerds is, it ties into a larger mainstream social trend of self-righteously declaring that anything and everything is sexist or racist, etc. In this specific case, it is not just a case of trolling (which is generally just done for the sake of the joy of hurting someone else's feelings) but also under the cover of being a real and serious social issue that distinguishes the rational, noble progressives from the filthy, degenerate bigots. It is in fact the exact same thing that nerds are used to in day-to-day life: mainstream people saying "we are normal and right and moral whereas you are terrible and sick and foolish" ... well, the terrible, sick, foolish nerds went off into their own space and made things like 40k which eventually became profitable enough to attract the interests of the kind of people who marginalized the nerds in the first place.
Oh please, enough with this silly victim complex. 'Evil feminists try to oppress the poor nerds.' Utterly laughable. When a large number of people claim that something is sexist or racist, 98,5% of the time it is because it is sexist or racist, not because they're trolling. Gender representation in 40K is gak, and yes, it is kinda sexist. This does not mean that liking 40K makes you sexist, but denying that there is a problem probably does.
Agreed! Nerds are the dominant culture at the moment. Not really the victims or oppressed anymore. ( especially by the evils of feminism. )
Ynneadwraith wrote: I'm not quite following what you mean by 'begging the question'. Can you explain?
Begging the question means assuming the conclusion. Like I said, your actual hypothesis is "the femarine concept generates the most pushback because the people pushing back are sexist." You would be assuming your conclusion by defining pushback to the femarines concept as sexist.
Ynneadwraith wrote: we cannot say "Topics A and B are both controversial but only Topic A has to do with gender. If Topic A has more pushback than Topic B then it must be because Topic A involves gender"
i meant that as an example of a sound argument - although sure your qualification ("probably involves gender") is better. But like I said, we both already agree that the femarine concept (a) generates the most pushback and (b) this is because the concept involves gender. Where we disagree is, you believe the operative factor is the sexism of 40k fans - whereas I believe the operative factor is this phenomenon of marginalization (including but not limited to "colonization") which created 40k fans - and all nerds - to begin with.
Ynneadwraith wrote: However, finding another subject that is similar to female Space Marines in the 'history for trolling' department would help make the results stronger.
I don't think there is anything even remotely like the concept of femarines for this purpose because it is so strongly tied to a specific trend in mainstream political culture. However, if you wanted to test whether 40k fans are sexist, maybe you could start a thread about an all-female IG regiment and see how that goes. But of course, I can tell you the result: posters will say "that already exists in the fluff."
Crimson wrote: Gender representation in 40K is gak, and yes, it is kinda sexist. This does not mean that liking 40K makes you sexist, but denying that there is a problem probably does.
Oh please yourself.
Manchu wrote: And if anything about 40k - as a product line - is sexist, it is definitely the lack of Guardswomen models. That is an example of applicably "dragging politics into it."
Manchu wrote: ... contrast this to the inexcusable lack of Guardswomen figures - while political, this is also a non-theoretical concern: (1) Guardswomen are not headcannon and (2) there is current, demonstrable market demand for Guardswomen models.
Crimson wrote: Manchu, could you stop derailing this thread with your politics?
Manchu wrote: The only politics I've dragged into this thread involves advocating female IG figs - but you're right, that's off-topic (I only brought it up because it was a useful counter example).
Not at all. The dominant culture has started to consume IPs that were produced by nerd culture. That does not make mainstream people nerds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DizzyStorey wrote: I believe the Tau are complicated. I think they believe the Ethereals are the only ones capable of bringing the greater good but that if you agree with them you can be assigned a place within the empire ( under the ethereals of course ) ware you are free to progress and prove yourselves worthy.
If the Greater Good is just this simple, rational concept that is race-blind ... then why are the Ethereals necessary? Why is it that only the Ethereals can shepherd the Empire in the path of the Greater Good?
Manchu wrote: I don't think there is anything even remotely like the concept of femarines for this purpose because it is so strongly tied to a specific trend in mainstream political culture.
And this trend is?
(You kinda already said earlier what you mean, but I wish you'd clarify. I don't want to put words in your mouth.)
The inescepable fact of humanity is that people want representation of themselves and their groups in the fiction they consume. When you have half of the human population who has for the longest time, been excluded, marginalized, sexualized, or even outright villified in most of humanity's history in the creation of fiction, you're going to get women pushing hard for increasing more visible female representation in fiction and wanting a decrease in sexualized portrayals of their gender and sex. You also see this with racial minorities such as black and native american populations who want to see more of their population represented in a morass of seemingly endless whiteness in most visual and even textual medium. And of course, sexual and gender identity minorities have also pushed for greater representation in the face of thousands of years of straight up erasure or even demonization. Queer people, racial minorities, and women aren't coming to take away your franchises from you, they just want to be represented in a respectful way and given actual prominence rather than just existing in the margins of settings and universes after being pushed to the sidelines for most of storytelling's collective history.
Crimson wrote: And this trend is? (You kinda already said earlier what you mean, but I wish you'd clarify. I don't want to put words in your mouth.)
The larger trend is mainstream market demand for IPs traditionally consumed by nerds. Part of that is pressure on the IPs to reform to better match mainstream tastes. Mainstream people (on /tg/, they are derided as "normies") say they like a certain IP X but also criticize X for not being more mainstream, such as not being sufficiently "representative" or "diverse." Nerds in turn challenge whether normies actually like X and are resentful of the notion that "their" beloved IPs require tailoring to the mainstream palette. One mainstream response has been to latch onto the typical problem that undersocialized/marginalized people have expressing themselves in a manner nonoffensive to the mainstream to characterize these criticisms as sexist and racist - which conveniently reaffirms mainstream values while also conveniently reaffirming the marginalization of non-mainstream culture. Nerds remain "weird" and "creepy" and, as it turns out, even the way they like comic books and miniature gaming is badwrongfun.
Kain wrote: they just want to be represented in a respectful way and given actual prominence
"Representation" in a broad sense assumes people can only relate to people like themselves along a few, extremely superficial dimensions. Pretty dumb. The more narrow sense of representation (for example, if your movie is about a woman suffering prejudice because she is Asian then you should probably cast an Asian actress as that woman) by contrast is very well taken. But that narrow sense doesn't really apply to 40k.
Ynneadwraith wrote: I'm not quite following what you mean by 'begging the question'. Can you explain?
Begging the question means assuming the conclusion. Like I said, your actual hypothesis is "the femarine concept generates the most pushback because the people pushing back are sexist." You would be assuming your conclusion by defining pushback to the femarines concept as sexist.
Ah I see. I've already explained that it's just a phenomenon of behaviour I've noticed, and that the only explanation I can think of that fits properly is unconscious gender bias (which isn't a myth, it's a widespread phenomenon demonstrated in all levels and pockets of society).
I'm not assuming anything, I'm hypothesising that that's an explanation. That's where the experiment comes in. To actually try to suggest which hypothesis is the more likely one.
Ynneadwraith wrote: we cannot say "Topics A and B are both controversial but only Topic A has to do with gender. If Topic A has more pushback than Topic B then it must be because Topic A involves gender"
i meant that as an example of a sound argument - although sure your qualification ("probably involves gender") is better. But like I said, we both already agree that the femarine concept (a) generates the most pushback and (b) this is because the concept involves gender. Where we disagree is, you believe the operative factor is the sexism of 40k fans - whereas I believe the operative factor is this phenomenon of marginalization (including but not limited to "colonization") which created 40k fans - and all nerds - to begin with.
I'm glad that we can agree that femmarines generate the most pushback, and that it's because the concept involves gender. By definition, that is a gender-biased thought process. Now, please, please, please don't think that I am saying that in any way accusatory. I don't think it's anything specific about geek culture. I'm not calling out people who are doing it and saying that they're bad people. I'm just pointing something out that is an undercurrent to damn near all human civilisation at this point in history, and often goes unnoticed by people who would be aghast that they are participating in that practice (I count myself as one of these people). I feel it is very important to point this stuff out, not because I want to feel high and mighty or anything, but because it is an acknowledged artifact of our culture as humans that is about time disappeared.
Now, onto the experiment
Have we moved on from your hypothesis that 'female Space Marines are a hot topic because they're a symbol of trolling'? What it seems like you're arguing now is that it is a hot topic because people are reacting to having been marginalised? Apologies, I don't follow the logic. Could you please explain the thought process by which that happens? Help me understand, I'm a little lost.
I have to say before you start though that I think your original hypothesis is a stronger one. Femmarines being a hot topic predates the 'colonisation' of geekdom by many years, as does trolling. Unless you mean it's a phenomenon of the original process by which geek culture was created, and/or the process by which geeks are now.?
I'll refrain from further thought on this until you've provided a bit more detail of your rationale as I might be clutching at the wrong argument here.
Ynneadwraith wrote: However, finding another subject that is similar to female Space Marines in the 'history for trolling' department would help make the results stronger.
I don't think there is anything even remotely like the concept of femarines for this purpose because it is so strongly tied to a specific trend in mainstream political culture. However, if you wanted to test whether 40k fans are sexist, maybe you could start a thread about an all-female IG regiment and see how that goes. But of course, I can tell you the result: posters will say "that already exists in the fluff."
Yeah that's sort of what I thought on the 'no other similar fluff for 'history for trolling' department front. That's why I went with the original experiment structure (including the Chaos Eldar as another hot topic) because that's the best way to control for the variables with what we have. In order to make it stronger though, we could come up with a number of other 'hot topics' that don't involve gender and compare all of them to female Marines which does. That would also strengthen the data we get through sheer quantity (which is worked into the statistical packages).
I don't think posting about an all-female IG regiment is in any way a similar thing unfortunately. Mainly for the point that you made that 'it already exists in the fluff'. By definition it's not a bending of the fluff, so it's not similar to female Marines. Plus, it doesn't have the connotations that make female Marines a potential subject for gender-bias (strength and legitimacy mainly. Aside from Primarchs, Space Marines are the pinnacle of human awesomeness in the 40k universe, whereas the Guard plays second-fiddle in the majority of fluff and people's perceptions).
Hah, I've just had a thought. No-where in the fluff does it state that 'Primarchs can't be female'. It only states that Space Marines can't, and that the Primarchs we know of were male. Perhaps that would be a way to provide further evidence that it is something fishy about women being strong, powerful and the top of the hierarchy that people feel uncomfortable with.
Is this some sort of Kafkaesque absurdism? Are you seriously attempting to insinuate that your average middle class male nerds are somehow more oppressed and marginalized than Blacks and Indigenous people who are disproportionately likely to end up dead and tend to live in markedly lower standards of living than the racial majorities in the developed world; than women who are constantly objectified, ignored or shoved to the sidelines in fiction; or Queer people who have for most of the modern era's history been regarded as actual factual abominations by much of the developed world, to be denied the right to exist as they actually are on the pain of death? People who even now are continually called abominations to be damned to burn in hellfire to this very day?
Crimson wrote: And this trend is?
(You kinda already said earlier what you mean, but I wish you'd clarify. I don't want to put words in your mouth.)
The larger trend is mainstream market demand for IPs traditionally consumed by nerds. Part of that is pressure on the IPs to reform to better match mainstream tastes. Mainstream people (on /tg/, they are derided as "normies") say they like a certain IP X but also criticize X for not being more mainstream, such as not being sufficiently "representative" or "diverse." Nerds in turn challenge whether normies actually like X and are resentful of the notion that "their" beloved IPs require tailoring to the mainstream palette. One mainstream response has been to latch onto the typical problem that undersocialized/marginalized people have expressing themselves in a manner nonoffensive to the mainstream to characterize these criticisms as sexist and racist - which conveniently reaffirms mainstream values.
Aaaah, that makes sense now. Thanks. I don't think that this is the case here unfortunately. I'm not trying to 'mainstream' 40k. I actually thoroughly dislike the new daemonettes and wish above all else that they would bring back plastic versions of the Juan Diaz daemonettes, purely because they fit so much better with the fluff. If I wanted to mainstream stuff I'd be dead-set against that as 'oh no, boobs!' is not exactly family-friendly. Besides, it's disingenuous because blokes are allowed to rip around topless so why shouldn't girls? Without people being funny about it. People have boobs. What's the big deal?
I do still think that the attitude towards female Space Marines does need to change though.
I promise you, this isn't a conspiracy to try and mainstream your particular corner of the universe. It's simply an attempt to let people like DizzyStorey share it with you (like so many other people do) without feeling like she's being singled out, or having her ideas called out as 'mainstreaming' or 'trolling' when it's actually a pretty neat idea she's had.
Manchu wrote: The larger trend is mainstream market demand for IPs traditionally consumed by nerds. Part of that is pressure on the IPs to reform to better match mainstream tastes. Mainstream people (on /tg/, they are derided as "normies") say they like a certain IP X but also criticize X for not being more mainstream, such as not being sufficiently "representative" or "diverse." Nerds in turn challenge whether normies actually like X and are resentful of the notion that "their" beloved IPs require tailoring to the mainstream palette. One mainstream response has been to latch onto the typical problem that undersocialized/marginalized people have expressing themselves in a manner nonoffensive to the mainstream to characterize these criticisms as sexist and racist - which conveniently reaffirms mainstream values while also conveniently reaffirming the marginalization of non-mainstream culture. Nerds remain "weird" and "creepy" and, as it turns out, even the way they like comic books and miniature gaming is badwrongfun.
Right.
So my earlier post was spot on. This is patently absurd. If 'mainstream' people accuse something of being sexist, it is vast majority of time because it is sexist, not because they try to oppress the nerds. Not to mention that this nerd victim compex is really in bad taste when we are talking about representation of groups of people who have historically been actually oppressed and marginalised.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kain wrote: Is this some sort of Kafkaesque absurdism? Are you seriously attempting to insinuate that your average middle class male nerds are somehow more oppressed and marginalized than Blacks and Indigenous people who are disproportionately likely to end up dead and tend to live in markedly lower standards of living than the racial majorities in the developed world; than women who are constantly objectified, ignored or shoved to the sidelines in fiction; or Queer people who have for most of the modern era's history been regarded as actual factual abominations by much of the developed world, to be denied the right to exist as they actually are on the pain of death? People who even now are continually called abominations to be damned to burn in hellfire to this very day?
Manchu wrote: Representation" in a broad sense assumes people can only relate to people like themselves along a few, extremely superficial dimensions. Pretty dumb. The more narrow sense of representation (for example, if your movie is about a woman suffering prejudice because she is Asian then you should probably cast an Asian actress as that woman) by contrast is very well taken. But that narrow sense doesn't really apply to 40k.
Bro, you don't get to tell women what they should be content with in terms of representation anymore than anyone has a right to tell trans people that they should be happy with the status quo where they're lucky to even get acknowledged as existing in most fiction outside of being the butt of disgusting jokes. Representation is about making people feel included. And in a large shared setting where one can endlessly add content because it's not tied down to the concerns that affect a single narrative setting like Lord of the Rings; there is no good excuse to not make people of colour, queer people, or women feel more included by giving them characters that they can relate to as a source of representation without people jumping on them with mansplanations about why they're violating canon by existing. Characters who should at least get to do something important once in a while even if it's in some self contained novel series. Like, do you even know how happy LGBTQ (or simply Queer for short) people are when a major work of fiction acknowledges their existence and gives them a positive portrayal? They squee in joy and delight because someone has the kindness to acknowledge they exist and not portray them as monsters. Or how much it brightens the day of many a young girl to see a woman who isn't just window dressing or a prize for the leading man to win in a movie or a game or a book? Or seen a black person get positively elated when they get a black character who isn't a collection of racial stereotypes? Maybe you don't have the proper frame of reference for it, but this is very, very deeply important to many people who would love nothing more than for the media to acknowledge that they exist and deserve to be respected and loved like any other human being. This isn't some dumb wish fulfillment audience avatar thing, this is born out of wanting to be acknowledged in a society that all too often objectifies, marginalizes and sometimes outright demonizes them. When you have angry redditors ranting, raving, and shouting about "da ess jay double yous" when major media has the audacity to include a cast that's not just filled with white dudebros or has girls who have the audacity to be actually major and independent characters; you have a lot of these marginalized people feeling very threatened to simply share the same space with the IP lest they get the kind of ranting and raving tongue lashing that Bioware fans get from people who have been accusing Bioware of cultural marxism since the 2010s began.
Ynneadwraith wrote: I'm glad that we can agree that femmarines generate the most pushback, and that it's because the concept involves gender. By definition, that is a gender-biased thought process.
No. Gender being involved does not necessarily imply a sexist motive.
Ynneadwraith wrote: What it seems like you're arguing now is that it is a hot topic because people are reacting to having been marginalised?
Why are you mischaracterizing my extremely consistent position. My very first post on the subject ITT:
Manchu wrote: Calling out the concept of SM as sexist, however, is badly misplaced. And 40k fans taking offense to that critique, which they correctly perceive as an implied attack (sometimes its explicit) on themselves, does not reveal that they are sexists.
Ynneadwraith wrote: I don't think posting about an all-female IG regiment is in any way a similar thing unfortunately.
What I was getting at is that what you actually want to do is test whether 40k fans are sexists. I think you could do it by asking about an existing issue of plausible sexism - the lack of official female IG figs - and see how many push back on the grounds that the fluff should be changed to exclude women.
Ynneadwraith wrote: Hah, I've just had a thought. No-where in the fluff does it state that 'Primarchs can't be female'. It only states that Space Marines can't, and that the Primarchs we know of were male. Perhaps that would be a way to provide further evidence that it is something fishy about women being strong, powerful and the top of the hierarchy that people feel uncomfortable with.
I actually thought a little about this one last night. It would have been a good one in past years. As it stands, we now know more about the missing Primarchs/Legions. For one thing, the Legions were around even if the Primarchs were missing. Second, we know that at least one of the missing Legions was folded into the UM. So that means the constituent SM were themselves all-male, if you accept that the missing Legions operated the same way as other SM (i.e., that they were in fact actually SM). That could still leave open the question of whether one or both of their Primarchs was female, either by the Emperor's design or by machinations of the Chaos Gods or both.
Crimson wrote: If 'mainstream' people accuse something of being sexist, it is vast majority of time because it is sexist
Is that something that can be demonstrated or is it one of those declarations that just stands because the person making it already assumes it is so? I think it has to be the former, especially in light of the possibility of alternative explanations.
Crimson wrote: people who have historically been actually oppressed and marginalised
Like nerds. The very definition of a the group is "social outcast."
Kain wrote: somehow more oppressed and marginalized than
Has nothing to do with what I have posted.
Kain wrote: Representation is about making people feel included.
Dismissing your 'Amazon Spacemarines' is not all that ingenious. If you read the Fabius Bile book Primogenitor Bile has created augmented humans from Astartes geneseed, the leader of this bunch happens to be female.
This is a very good point. It is important to note though that Igori and the rest are not actual Astartes, but rather "Gland-Hounds".
Here's what I could get of the extract:
"Gland-hounds. The New Humanity, as designed by Fabius Bile. Stronger, faster, more aggressive than the brief sparks that sheltered in the shadow of the Imperium. The first generation had been born of partial gene-seed implantation. Those first few crude attempts had become more refined over time, as the master had devised his own, lesser form of gene-seed. One which was not so likely to kill its host out of hand.
They came alert instantly. There was a disconcerting intensity to their blank gazes - as if he were some large bovid who had wandered unknowing into the midst of a carnosaur pack. It had been a long time since anything had looked at him that way, and he shivered in delight. 'They say, in the lands of milk and sorrow, that those pale echoes of our brothers now gone know no fear,' he said to Arrian. 'It saddens me to think of it .'
As he spoke, one of hounds stepped forward, setting herself between them and the doorway beyond. She crossed her muscular arms, and gazed steadily at them. 'Igori,' Arrian said. There was an odd sort of respect in his tone, Oleander thought. He bridled at it. Arrian was free to consider the creature his equal, but Oleander was under no such obligation.
'You're new,' Oleander said , looking down at the woman - Igori, Arrian had called her. He sniffed, and grimaced. 'But I can tell you're one of his. I can smell it from here. '
Igori said nothing. Her face was square. It might as well have been chiselled out of marble. Everything about her was perfect. Too perfect, too symmetrical. As if she were nothing more than a machine of meat and muscle. "
As we see, certainly female. Certainly very powerful, easily a match for a Space Marines in strength and toughness. But it is important to note that even these Gland-Hounds are only borne of "partial gene-seed implantation", or Fabius' own "lesser form of gene-seed".
This lends credence to genetically augmented females being possible, as I have maintained alongside Ezra. As for them being actual Astartes? Not so.
@Ynneadwraith - I fully accept and return the apology. I understand that I argued for far longer than I probably should have, and that we are both free to interpret fluff as mutably as we each choose to. It is, as you said, one of 40k's very good factors. For me, I do support people's own creation of fluff, but for me, it rubs me up the wrong when when it counters what I see as outright statements, ie blue being blue, up being up, etc etc. Again, my apologies for dragging this out. I've taken a step back to avoid instigating much else.
For me, I have no intention of hounding anyone out. If OP was dead set on having female marines, and didn't actually care for established lore, I have nothing to say but go for it. It's only when this question is brought into lore forums, and directed as a "I like the lore but..." statement that rises a reaction. For me, I would expect to see actual lore discussed in this particular forum, and only for actual canon lore, with that being the only arbiter. As current lore stands, assuming it's immutable, female Space Marines are not possible. But if OP doesn't want to listen to lore, or they do believe in the mutability of that line, who am I to stop them, as a random person on the internet?
My only real issue was that in a lore discussion, the lore itself was being ignored and seen as inappropriate in a lore discussion.
In response to your query of "Why is it that you feel so strongly about not having female Space Marines?", and "hasn't provided an explanation for why he deems that particular piece of fluff to be so important", it's just simple - I see that the lore is, without exceptional reason, immutable. I value the lore, and if it is immutable, like the statement of females not being able to be Space Marines, I'll default to the lore taking priority. Especially in a lore discussion.
I feel strongly about it because I feel the lore to around the issue be immutable and of high priority in a lore discussion.
I hope that clears up the question.
Likewise thankyou for the considered response
Perhaps it will help to frame the discussion using something else from the fluff that is comparable, and that other people can possibly use as a bridge to relate to the situation with female Space Marines and why I think it's unfair and unjustified.
There is a statement within the 'lore' (5th ed. SM Codex) that states that no matter what other Space Marines do, no matter how hard they try, they will never be Ultramarines (or words to that effect). So, what that suggests is that no matter what you do to your dudes, no matter how successful your chosen chapter is, they will never be as good as Ultramarines. They will never be 'the genuine article'. Which is, quite frankly, a pile of horse sh*t.
Absolutely agreed. Terrible writing, absolutely abysmal treatment to other Chapters. No argument in that this was a pile of gak.
However, it is an absolute statement in the lore, unless you want to go down the road of different bits of lore being more or less immutable than others.
This is where I beg to differ. Yes, it *was* an absolute statement, and has since been reamended. Spiritual Liege isn't mentioned at all in the new Codex, and we don't see anything about other Chapters never being Ultramarines. It's far less C: UM than it used to be, which I'd say is for the better. It has been amended, unsupported - there's clash of canon now.
Much like with the Goto examples (of which there are two many to name), one must look at conflicting fluff, and make the logical deductions as to which fluff is more recent, more specific, and more numerous. Under this logic, backflipping Terminators are ruled out, Spiritual Liege-ism is ruled out, the half-Eldar Librarian of the Ultramarines is ruled out.
Note that this process is only undergone when fluff clashes.
In the case of FeMarines, there is no clash. Nothing has changed in that geneseed is not compatible with the female body. It's not changed, and we see no female Astartes at any given point in the canon. There's no clash - the only thing that conflicts with it is real life. Not anything in the universe we are in given.
How do you (not just you, but others reading this comment too) feel that your chosen Space Marines are outright stated to 'not be as good as the Ultramarines'. It's annoying isn't it? It's insulting, if anything. It is justifiably ignored.
Now, take that feeling and put it into the context of someone being told that no matter what they do their female genetically modified warriors that are 100% identical to Astartes aside from being female, can never genuinely be Astartes. It's exactly the same logical process, yet this particular statement is held up so strongly when the previous one is happily ignored.
Can you see why that is unfair? Can you see why that doesn't make sense?
I displayed that the 5th Edition fluff is no longer relevant, whereas the FeMarine fluff (or lack of it) is still relevant. There is no in-universe conflict of sources. It is unanimously shown that women cannot be Astartes.
Call it technobabble, call it whatever, but it is uncontested canon. Nothing countermands it or contests it, unlike "Spiritual Liege Guilliman".
That's the difference here.
If the lore bans you from doing it, break the lore. Go ahead, it's up to you, the hobbyist. Just don't pretend that your break from the lore is actual canon.
Now. I don't mind if you feel like both statements are gospel, because they are both written down as statements of fact in the lore. However, when you get fluff topics about cool things Dark Angels have done, you don't get 10 pages of people stating 'yeah they're cool, better even, but they will never be Ultramarines'. And then justifying that stance by saying 'but it says so in the lore'.
Lore that is contested. FeMarines are not contested.
The combination of those two points is why I am certain that people treat female Space Marines strangely compared to any other piece of fluff (or lore, if you see it that way). It's not just that some people take each thing written down as sacrosanct (because that's just how some people like to interpret it which is fine), but it's that so many people will specifically go out of their way to state again and again the equivalent of 'all those reasons they are cool is nice...but they will never be Ultramarines'.
Except that the Ultramarine situation has not been unanimous in all of 40k's history, and that it has since changed from 5th Ed.
FeMarines has never existed in canon.
That's why I keep asking why people feel so strongly about this particular piece of lore. Because there are other pieces of lore that actually effect more people that people don't give a toss about, and I don't think it's fair or logical.
I hope my response shed light on this.
Also, in response to the "White Ultramarines" argument - it's absolutely and completely logical for a company of Ultramarines to repaint their armour for their captain. More acceptable in the Legion era, but in 40k still possible. However, two things:
1) Painting full armour is unheard of, and would likely result in disciplinary action. If they refused to amend their colour scheme, they would most likely be exiled, leading to...
2) Becoming separate to the Ultramarines. Either through choice, force, or exile, they cease to become actual Ultramarines, and a new faction - the Lions of Ultramar. So no, we don't have White Ultramarines. We have White Lions of Ultramar. They may be descended from the Ultramarines, even have been born into their ranks, but once they change their armour permanently, they cease to be Ultramarines.
Ynneadwraith wrote: I'm glad that we can agree that femmarines generate the most pushback, and that it's because the concept involves gender. By definition, that is a gender-biased thought process.
No. Gender being involved does not necessarily imply a sexist motive.
I'm sorry, but being told you cannot do something on the basis of gender is the very definition of sexism.
Ynneadwraith wrote: What it seems like you're arguing now is that it is a hot topic because people are reacting to having been marginalised?
Why are you mischaracterizing my extremely consistent position. My very first post on the subject ITT:
Manchu wrote: Calling out the concept of SM as sexist, however, is badly misplaced. And 40k fans taking offense to that critique, which they correctly perceive as an implied attack (sometimes its explicit) on themselves, does not reveal that they are sexists.
Apologies, previously you have stated that you were happy for your hypothesis to be described as 'female Space Marines are a tool people have used for trolling'. I must still admit that i think that is a far better explanation for the phenomenon than the marginalisation idea.
Ynneadwraith wrote: I don't think posting about an all-female IG regiment is in any way a similar thing unfortunately.
What I was getting at is that what you actually want to do is test whether 40k fans are sexists. I think you could do it by asking about an existing issue of plausible sexism - the lack of official female IG figs - and see how many push back on the grounds that the fluff should be changed to exclude women.
Female representation is one aspect of gender equality. I am happy to include that in the experiment.
However, it is still not an accurate comparison because female IG are legitimised in the fluff. That does not have the same connotations as having female Space Marines existing as a concept, given the latter's lack of legitimacy and status as the flagship faction of the universe.
I have to agree with everything Kain has written regarding why this particular thing is different to other measures of female representation. It's one thing to have to convert your female IG because there isn't official figs. It's another thing being told that you physically cannot convert female versions of your figures and have them be included and accepted into the universe.
Kain is spot-on the money as to why this is different. Spot on the money as to why this is important.
Ynneadwraith wrote: but being told you cannot do something on the basis of gender is the very definition of sexism
As you know, the proffered explanation is about biology. Is it sexist to tell genetic males that they cannot ovulate?
As I mentioned several pages back, I would be happier if the in-universe explanation was simply sexism, just like the in-universe explanation of SoB is sexism.
I think the word "trolling" has caused more confusion than necessary - that's my fault so sorry for mixing the concepts. I was (mis)using the word to characterize teasing, bullying, excluding, making fun of - I am using "marginalization" to encapsulate that experience BTW.
Ynneadwraith wrote: It's another thing being told that you physically cannot convert female versions of your figures and have them be included and accepted into the universe
Dismissing your 'Amazon Spacemarines' is not all that ingenious. If you read the Fabius Bile book Primogenitor Bile has created augmented humans from Astartes geneseed, the leader of this bunch happens to be female.
This is a very good point. It is important to note though that Igori and the rest are not actual Astartes, but rather "Gland-Hounds".
Here's what I could get of the extract:
"Gland-hounds. The New Humanity, as designed by Fabius Bile. Stronger, faster, more aggressive than the brief sparks that sheltered in the shadow of the Imperium. The first generation had been born of partial gene-seed implantation. Those first few crude attempts had become more refined over time, as the master had devised his own, lesser form of gene-seed. One which was not so likely to kill its host out of hand.
They came alert instantly. There was a disconcerting intensity to their blank gazes - as if he were some large bovid who had wandered unknowing into the midst of a carnosaur pack. It had been a long time since anything had looked at him that way, and he shivered in delight. 'They say, in the lands of milk and sorrow, that those pale echoes of our brothers now gone know no fear,' he said to Arrian. 'It saddens me to think of it .'
As he spoke, one of hounds stepped forward, setting herself between them and the doorway beyond. She crossed her muscular arms, and gazed steadily at them. 'Igori,' Arrian said. There was an odd sort of respect in his tone, Oleander thought. He bridled at it. Arrian was free to consider the creature his equal, but Oleander was under no such obligation.
'You're new,' Oleander said , looking down at the woman - Igori, Arrian had called her. He sniffed, and grimaced. 'But I can tell you're one of his. I can smell it from here. '
Igori said nothing. Her face was square. It might as well have been chiselled out of marble. Everything about her was perfect. Too perfect, too symmetrical. As if she were nothing more than a machine of meat and muscle. "
As we see, certainly female. Certainly very powerful, easily a match for a Space Marines in strength and toughness. But it is important to note that even these Gland-Hounds are only borne of "partial gene-seed implantation", or Fabius' own "lesser form of gene-seed".
This lends credence to genetically augmented females being possible, as I have maintained alongside Ezra. As for them being actual Astartes? Not so.
@Ynneadwraith - I fully accept and return the apology. I understand that I argued for far longer than I probably should have, and that we are both free to interpret fluff as mutably as we each choose to. It is, as you said, one of 40k's very good factors. For me, I do support people's own creation of fluff, but for me, it rubs me up the wrong when when it counters what I see as outright statements, ie blue being blue, up being up, etc etc. Again, my apologies for dragging this out. I've taken a step back to avoid instigating much else.
For me, I have no intention of hounding anyone out. If OP was dead set on having female marines, and didn't actually care for established lore, I have nothing to say but go for it. It's only when this question is brought into lore forums, and directed as a "I like the lore but..." statement that rises a reaction. For me, I would expect to see actual lore discussed in this particular forum, and only for actual canon lore, with that being the only arbiter. As current lore stands, assuming it's immutable, female Space Marines are not possible. But if OP doesn't want to listen to lore, or they do believe in the mutability of that line, who am I to stop them, as a random person on the internet?
My only real issue was that in a lore discussion, the lore itself was being ignored and seen as inappropriate in a lore discussion.
In response to your query of "Why is it that you feel so strongly about not having female Space Marines?", and "hasn't provided an explanation for why he deems that particular piece of fluff to be so important", it's just simple - I see that the lore is, without exceptional reason, immutable. I value the lore, and if it is immutable, like the statement of females not being able to be Space Marines, I'll default to the lore taking priority. Especially in a lore discussion.
I feel strongly about it because I feel the lore to around the issue be immutable and of high priority in a lore discussion.
I hope that clears up the question.
Likewise thankyou for the considered response
Perhaps it will help to frame the discussion using something else from the fluff that is comparable, and that other people can possibly use as a bridge to relate to the situation with female Space Marines and why I think it's unfair and unjustified.
There is a statement within the 'lore' (5th ed. SM Codex) that states that no matter what other Space Marines do, no matter how hard they try, they will never be Ultramarines (or words to that effect). So, what that suggests is that no matter what you do to your dudes, no matter how successful your chosen chapter is, they will never be as good as Ultramarines. They will never be 'the genuine article'. Which is, quite frankly, a pile of horse sh*t.
Absolutely agreed. Terrible writing, absolutely abysmal treatment to other Chapters. No argument in that this was a pile of gak.
However, it is an absolute statement in the lore, unless you want to go down the road of different bits of lore being more or less immutable than others.
This is where I beg to differ. Yes, it *was* an absolute statement, and has since been reamended. Spiritual Liege isn't mentioned at all in the new Codex, and we don't see anything about other Chapters never being Ultramarines. It's far less C: UM than it used to be, which I'd say is for the better. It has been amended, unsupported - there's clash of canon now.
Much like with the Goto examples (of which there are two many to name), one must look at conflicting fluff, and make the logical deductions as to which fluff is more recent, more specific, and more numerous. Under this logic, backflipping Terminators are ruled out, Spiritual Liege-ism is ruled out, the half-Eldar Librarian of the Ultramarines is ruled out.
Note that this process is only undergone when fluff clashes.
In the case of FeMarines, there is no clash. Nothing has changed in that geneseed is not compatible with the female body. It's not changed, and we see no female Astartes at any given point in the canon. There's no clash - the only thing that conflicts with it is real life. Not anything in the universe we are in given.
How do you (not just you, but others reading this comment too) feel that your chosen Space Marines are outright stated to 'not be as good as the Ultramarines'. It's annoying isn't it? It's insulting, if anything. It is justifiably ignored.
Now, take that feeling and put it into the context of someone being told that no matter what they do their female genetically modified warriors that are 100% identical to Astartes aside from being female, can never genuinely be Astartes. It's exactly the same logical process, yet this particular statement is held up so strongly when the previous one is happily ignored.
Can you see why that is unfair? Can you see why that doesn't make sense?
I displayed that the 5th Edition fluff is no longer relevant, whereas the FeMarine fluff (or lack of it) is still relevant. There is no in-universe conflict of sources. It is unanimously shown that women cannot be Astartes.
Call it technobabble, call it whatever, but it is uncontested canon. Nothing countermands it or contests it, unlike "Spiritual Liege Guilliman".
That's the difference here.
If the lore bans you from doing it, break the lore. Go ahead, it's up to you, the hobbyist. Just don't pretend that your break from the lore is actual canon.
Now. I don't mind if you feel like both statements are gospel, because they are both written down as statements of fact in the lore. However, when you get fluff topics about cool things Dark Angels have done, you don't get 10 pages of people stating 'yeah they're cool, better even, but they will never be Ultramarines'. And then justifying that stance by saying 'but it says so in the lore'.
Lore that is contested. FeMarines are not contested.
The combination of those two points is why I am certain that people treat female Space Marines strangely compared to any other piece of fluff (or lore, if you see it that way). It's not just that some people take each thing written down as sacrosanct (because that's just how some people like to interpret it which is fine), but it's that so many people will specifically go out of their way to state again and again the equivalent of 'all those reasons they are cool is nice...but they will never be Ultramarines'.
Except that the Ultramarine situation has not been unanimous in all of 40k's history, and that it has since changed from 5th Ed.
FeMarines has never existed in canon.
That's why I keep asking why people feel so strongly about this particular piece of lore. Because there are other pieces of lore that actually effect more people that people don't give a toss about, and I don't think it's fair or logical.
I hope my response shed light on this.
Also, in response to the "White Ultramarines" argument - it's absolutely and completely logical for a company of Ultramarines to repaint their armour for their captain. More acceptable in the Legion era, but in 40k still possible. However, two things:
1) Painting full armour is unheard of, and would likely result in disciplinary action. If they refused to amend their colour scheme, they would most likely be exiled, leading to...
2) Becoming separate to the Ultramarines. Either through choice, force, or exile, they cease to become actual Ultramarines, and a new faction - the Lions of Ultramar. So no, we don't have White Ultramarines. We have White Lions of Ultramar. They may be descended from the Ultramarines, even have been born into their ranks, but once they change their armour permanently, they cease to be Ultramarines.
Thankyou for at least proving your integrity that you will argue against white Ultramarines. I believe you will be in a minory unfortunately, compared to thise that will contest female Space Marines. That is something that will have to be demonstrated on way or the other by experiment.
Also, i am disputing the lack of female Space Marines, as is everyone in this thread who stated they were ok with it.
I feel i should make a qualification at this point. I never wanted to say that female space marines are a legitimate piece of the lore (not until it's actually written down). However, i do want them to be treated exactly the same as any other break from the lore by the people in this community, which they aren't (as evidenced by the weight of anecdotes about how they're treated differently from others, and the admission by Machu who has been one of my staunchest opponents).
You, my friend, are a wonderfully unbiased exception unfortunately, one response doesn not make a cumminity backlash.
Excellent post RE: UM armor. If someone's personal UM army knowingly disregarded the established principles of the Codex Astartes then they wouldn't be very convincing UM considering the foundational principle of the UM is Codex adherence. An excellent example of the kind of detailed information you can get by posting on a 40k fan site when weighing the pros and cons of your persnoal army idea.
Dismissing your 'Amazon Spacemarines' is not all that ingenious. If you read the Fabius Bile book Primogenitor Bile has created augmented humans from Astartes geneseed, the leader of this bunch happens to be female.
This is a very good point. It is important to note though that Igori and the rest are not actual Astartes, but rather "Gland-Hounds".
Here's what I could get of the extract:
"Gland-hounds. The New Humanity, as designed by Fabius Bile. Stronger, faster, more aggressive than the brief sparks that sheltered in the shadow of the Imperium. The first generation had been born of partial gene-seed implantation. Those first few crude attempts had become more refined over time, as the master had devised his own, lesser form of gene-seed. One which was not so likely to kill its host out of hand.
They came alert instantly. There was a disconcerting intensity to their blank gazes - as if he were some large bovid who had wandered unknowing into the midst of a carnosaur pack. It had been a long time since anything had looked at him that way, and he shivered in delight. 'They say, in the lands of milk and sorrow, that those pale echoes of our brothers now gone know no fear,' he said to Arrian. 'It saddens me to think of it .'
As he spoke, one of hounds stepped forward, setting herself between them and the doorway beyond. She crossed her muscular arms, and gazed steadily at them. 'Igori,' Arrian said. There was an odd sort of respect in his tone, Oleander thought. He bridled at it. Arrian was free to consider the creature his equal, but Oleander was under no such obligation.
'You're new,' Oleander said , looking down at the woman - Igori, Arrian had called her. He sniffed, and grimaced. 'But I can tell you're one of his. I can smell it from here. '
Igori said nothing. Her face was square. It might as well have been chiselled out of marble. Everything about her was perfect. Too perfect, too symmetrical. As if she were nothing more than a machine of meat and muscle. "
As we see, certainly female. Certainly very powerful, easily a match for a Space Marines in strength and toughness. But it is important to note that even these Gland-Hounds are only borne of "partial gene-seed implantation", or Fabius' own "lesser form of gene-seed".
This lends credence to genetically augmented females being possible, as I have maintained alongside Ezra. As for them being actual Astartes? Not so.
@Ynneadwraith - I fully accept and return the apology. I understand that I argued for far longer than I probably should have, and that we are both free to interpret fluff as mutably as we each choose to. It is, as you said, one of 40k's very good factors. For me, I do support people's own creation of fluff, but for me, it rubs me up the wrong when when it counters what I see as outright statements, ie blue being blue, up being up, etc etc. Again, my apologies for dragging this out. I've taken a step back to avoid instigating much else.
For me, I have no intention of hounding anyone out. If OP was dead set on having female marines, and didn't actually care for established lore, I have nothing to say but go for it. It's only when this question is brought into lore forums, and directed as a "I like the lore but..." statement that rises a reaction. For me, I would expect to see actual lore discussed in this particular forum, and only for actual canon lore, with that being the only arbiter. As current lore stands, assuming it's immutable, female Space Marines are not possible. But if OP doesn't want to listen to lore, or they do believe in the mutability of that line, who am I to stop them, as a random person on the internet?
My only real issue was that in a lore discussion, the lore itself was being ignored and seen as inappropriate in a lore discussion.
In response to your query of "Why is it that you feel so strongly about not having female Space Marines?", and "hasn't provided an explanation for why he deems that particular piece of fluff to be so important", it's just simple - I see that the lore is, without exceptional reason, immutable. I value the lore, and if it is immutable, like the statement of females not being able to be Space Marines, I'll default to the lore taking priority. Especially in a lore discussion.
I feel strongly about it because I feel the lore to around the issue be immutable and of high priority in a lore discussion.
I hope that clears up the question.
Likewise thankyou for the considered response
Perhaps it will help to frame the discussion using something else from the fluff that is comparable, and that other people can possibly use as a bridge to relate to the situation with female Space Marines and why I think it's unfair and unjustified.
There is a statement within the 'lore' (5th ed. SM Codex) that states that no matter what other Space Marines do, no matter how hard they try, they will never be Ultramarines (or words to that effect). So, what that suggests is that no matter what you do to your dudes, no matter how successful your chosen chapter is, they will never be as good as Ultramarines. They will never be 'the genuine article'. Which is, quite frankly, a pile of horse sh*t.
Absolutely agreed. Terrible writing, absolutely abysmal treatment to other Chapters. No argument in that this was a pile of gak.
However, it is an absolute statement in the lore, unless you want to go down the road of different bits of lore being more or less immutable than others.
This is where I beg to differ. Yes, it *was* an absolute statement, and has since been reamended. Spiritual Liege isn't mentioned at all in the new Codex, and we don't see anything about other Chapters never being Ultramarines. It's far less C: UM than it used to be, which I'd say is for the better. It has been amended, unsupported - there's clash of canon now.
Much like with the Goto examples (of which there are two many to name), one must look at conflicting fluff, and make the logical deductions as to which fluff is more recent, more specific, and more numerous. Under this logic, backflipping Terminators are ruled out, Spiritual Liege-ism is ruled out, the half-Eldar Librarian of the Ultramarines is ruled out.
Note that this process is only undergone when fluff clashes.
In the case of FeMarines, there is no clash. Nothing has changed in that geneseed is not compatible with the female body. It's not changed, and we see no female Astartes at any given point in the canon. There's no clash - the only thing that conflicts with it is real life. Not anything in the universe we are in given.
How do you (not just you, but others reading this comment too) feel that your chosen Space Marines are outright stated to 'not be as good as the Ultramarines'. It's annoying isn't it? It's insulting, if anything. It is justifiably ignored.
Now, take that feeling and put it into the context of someone being told that no matter what they do their female genetically modified warriors that are 100% identical to Astartes aside from being female, can never genuinely be Astartes. It's exactly the same logical process, yet this particular statement is held up so strongly when the previous one is happily ignored.
Can you see why that is unfair? Can you see why that doesn't make sense?
I displayed that the 5th Edition fluff is no longer relevant, whereas the FeMarine fluff (or lack of it) is still relevant. There is no in-universe conflict of sources. It is unanimously shown that women cannot be Astartes.
Call it technobabble, call it whatever, but it is uncontested canon. Nothing countermands it or contests it, unlike "Spiritual Liege Guilliman".
That's the difference here.
If the lore bans you from doing it, break the lore. Go ahead, it's up to you, the hobbyist. Just don't pretend that your break from the lore is actual canon.
Now. I don't mind if you feel like both statements are gospel, because they are both written down as statements of fact in the lore. However, when you get fluff topics about cool things Dark Angels have done, you don't get 10 pages of people stating 'yeah they're cool, better even, but they will never be Ultramarines'. And then justifying that stance by saying 'but it says so in the lore'.
Lore that is contested. FeMarines are not contested.
The combination of those two points is why I am certain that people treat female Space Marines strangely compared to any other piece of fluff (or lore, if you see it that way). It's not just that some people take each thing written down as sacrosanct (because that's just how some people like to interpret it which is fine), but it's that so many people will specifically go out of their way to state again and again the equivalent of 'all those reasons they are cool is nice...but they will never be Ultramarines'.
Except that the Ultramarine situation has not been unanimous in all of 40k's history, and that it has since changed from 5th Ed.
FeMarines has never existed in canon.
That's why I keep asking why people feel so strongly about this particular piece of lore. Because there are other pieces of lore that actually effect more people that people don't give a toss about, and I don't think it's fair or logical.
I hope my response shed light on this.
Also, in response to the "White Ultramarines" argument - it's absolutely and completely logical for a company of Ultramarines to repaint their armour for their captain. More acceptable in the Legion era, but in 40k still possible. However, two things:
1) Painting full armour is unheard of, and would likely result in disciplinary action. If they refused to amend their colour scheme, they would most likely be exiled, leading to...
2) Becoming separate to the Ultramarines. Either through choice, force, or exile, they cease to become actual Ultramarines, and a new faction - the Lions of Ultramar. So no, we don't have White Ultramarines. We have White Lions of Ultramar. They may be descended from the Ultramarines, even have been born into their ranks, but once they change their armour permanently, they cease to be Ultramarines.
Thankyou for at least proving your integrity that you will argue against white Ultramarines. I believe you will be in a minory unfortunately, compared to thise that will contest female Space Marines. That is something that will have to be demonstrated on way or the other by experiment.
Also, i am disputing the lack of female Space Marines, as is everyone in this thread who stated they were ok with it.
I feel i should make a qualification at this point. I never wanted to say that female space marines are a legitimate piece of the lore (not until it's actually written down). However, i do want them to be treated exactly the same as any other break from the lore by the people in this community, which they aren't (as evidenced by the weight of anecdotes about how they're treated differently from others, and the admission by Machu who has been one of my staunchest opponents).
You, my friend, are a wonderfully unbiased exception unfortunately, one response doesn not make a cumminity backlash.
I hope that makes it clearer
No, I completely understand what you mean. I share your opinion that a lore break should be treated equally, and recognise that it's not a universal one. To each their own, and all that jazz.
It has been a pleasure discussing this, but I feel this is where, at least for me, I have said all I need to.
Ynneadwraith wrote: i do want them to be treated exactly the same as any other break from the lore by the people in this community, which they aren't (as evidenced by the weight of anecdotes about how they're treated differently from others, and the admission by Machu who has been one of my staunchest opponents)
I don't see myself as your opponent. Also not sure what I "admitted" - I never argued that the femarine concept received the same amount of pushback as other ideas diverging from the published background or that this didn't have something to do with gender. You have repeatedly stated that you can't think of any explanation for this other than 40k fans being sexists. And I have repeatedly offered another explanation. By characterizing me as your opponent, are you saying that you absolutely reject my explanation such that you can still only explain it by accusing 40k fans of sexism?
Manchu wrote: I actually thought a little about this one last night. It would have been a good one in past years. As it stands, we now know more about the missing Primarchs/Legions. For one thing, the Legions were around even if the Primarchs were missing. Second, we know that at least one of the missing Legions was folded into the UM. So that means the constituent SM were themselves all-male, if you accept that the missing Legions operated the same way as other SM (i.e., that they were in fact actually SM).
As far as I know the only time someone suggested that the Ultrarmarines absorbed one of the missing Legions was during a discussion between bitter Word Bearers. The author (Aaron Dembski-Bownden) said that it was only supposed to be in universe rumour and not fact.
In other words, BL editors changed their minds LOL. It shouldn't be on the authors to "clarify" stuff like this.
But it doesn't change the analysis for the purposes of this thread. The only way it could have been a credible rumor is if the SM in question were all-male, which at least some of the WBs would actually have had personal knowledge of anyway.
Ynneadwraith wrote: but being told you cannot do something on the basis of gender is the very definition of sexism
As you know, the proffered explanation is about biology. Is it sexist to tell genetic males that they cannot ovulate?
As I mentioned several pages back, I would be happier if the in-universe explanation was simply sexism, just like the in-universe explanation of SoB is sexism.
It is sexist to tell someone that they cannot do something in a fictional universe because of a fictional reason they feel particularly strongly about for no logical in-universe reason.
I'm sorry to quote a PM, but it is particularly fitting:
It takes a certain amount of self-awareness to realize that by defending a fictional thing on fictional principles you might be missing what's actually important to you about that fictional thing
This is one of those times when self-awareness regarding the legitimacy of this particular piece of fiction due to pseudoscience technobabble 'biology', is missing the point that it's just technobabble and not based on anything solid in real life that would actually prevent something absolutely (such as telling a male that they cannot ovulate). If you really want to, you can quite easily have a male ovulating in 40k by making up some technobabble about how it's possible and it would be as legitimate as any other piece of fan-made fluff that is given a reasonable degree of legitimacy by GW's general attitude towards fluff. However, for some reason that cannot be explained in-universe, that process which works on everything else is discarded when it comes to female Marines.
I would absolutely and utterly agree that it would be better to explain the lack of female Marines in the fluff by in-universe sexism than anything else. It fits a lot more with the general tone of the universe, and people would be a lot less touchy if you were to bend it for their dudes
I think the word "trolling" has caused more confusion than necessary - that's my fault so sorry for mixing the concepts. I was (mis)using the word to characterize teasing, bullying, excluding, making fun of - I am using "marginalization" to encapsulate that experience BTW.
Fair enough no harm done, although can you see how the continual and illogical statement that DizzyStorey's female Marines are a fluff impossibility, meaning that if she makes them they cannot coexist with other people's armies in that person's eyes, is an example of marginalisation as you have defined it (specifically exclusion)?
Actually it's a complete non sequitur considering no one at all is arguing that "strong female characters" should not be represented in 40k.
It's not a complete non-sequitur because it makes some very, very valid and important points about the genuine effects of marginalisation on existing populations that struggle to find acceptance. One of those populations is represented here by DizzyStorey. I'm not saying anyone here is as bad as that, or should feel bad or anything. It's just something to potentially be aware of.
Ynneadwraith wrote: It's another thing being told that you physically cannot convert female versions of your figures and have them be included and accepted into the universe
Can you quote ITT where someone posted this?
Apologies to anyone copied here as I don't mean to single you out or anything, I just need some evidence. It's not one person that makes up a community response, but one person's second-thoughts can help reduce one. Anyway, sorry again!
For these, I have omitted any comments I've found that have prefaced what they're saying with 'from a lore perspective it doesn't work, but do what you want with the army'. I've also spoilered and anonymised them so as not to be inciting or name dropping or anything. I've also tried to stop from quoting things when the same person has just simply repeated a statement without suggesting some new information, or responding to a different comment.
Spoiler:
Out of all of them, I'll rank my picks:
One, unless you change them to be genetically engineered humans (but not actually Astartes, so lacking certain organs, abilities etc etc) it breaks fluff. It's a constant of 40k - like how Khorne is the god of blood, and not the god of friendliness. You want women in power armour - SOB. You want genetically engineered women in power armour? Make them enhanced or even abhumans given power armour by a generous sponsor in a faction of the Imperium (Ecclesiarchy - the amazons are fanatically loyal to the sun god aka the Emperor, and they use the amazons as their own retinue//Adeptus Mechanicus or Rogue Trader- a loyal bodyguard for the one who found them//Inquisition - the inquisitor dislikes the Adeptus Astartes and Sisters of Battle, and forges their own retinue from local abhuman natives) or even have looted the power armour themselves from a long extinct Chapter on their planet.
Make them abhuman. Make them simply incredibly powerful. Make them whatever. But don't call them Adeptus Astartes. Because there's nothing in the fluff to actually support, or condone, them being actual Space Marines.
And with fem space marines, its not like theres a mountain of fluff discouraging it
It never needed mountains of fluff because most people don't argue with:
Thus, for most Astartes, their Progenoid Glands represent the only form of reproduction they will ever know, though the DNA passed on will be that of their Primarch, not their own.
it just says that chicks die when they try to do it cause its not meant to work with the XX chromosome, so its not like its the entire basis of the space marines or anything.
The entire basis of making a Space Marine is the fact that it's genetic coding from Primarchs, which were all dudes and gods among men.
I've italicised the responses I'm meaning as other wise it's unclear, This is less of an absolute statement, but it is still a solid refutation and statement that they cannot possibly fit into the universe (despite the fact that other things are happier to).
Thus making female post-humans based on Space Marine gene-seed is fine, but don't call them Space Marines
Female space marines on the other hand... you present the best reason why it is kind of dumb to be concerned one way or another. Forgive the lack of quotes.
*Pump anyone with that level of testosterone and biological augmentations and you'd end up with a Space Marine regardless of what you started from. It's not as if theres any sexuality left after their indoctrination anyway.*
They offer nothing new to the setting.
This again is not a direct refutation, but it is a very dismissive statement about how they shouldn't be included because 'they offer nothing new to the setting.
A mad Magos creating genetically engineered Amazons in power armour is fine, so long as these Warrior Women are not regarded as Adeptus Astartes Space Marines
If the process was bastardised, however, then they would be genetically engineered badasses in power armour, but not actual Space Marines.
They would be Space Marines in all but name, but seeing as Space Marines are thus barred to females, it is an important distinction to make.
Which is exactly why claiming that there flat-out aren't any women at all in the entirety of the 40k universe that are compatible with the Astartes modifications, and no possible way at all to modify either so that they are compatible is patently absurd.
If the Emperor of Mankind couldn't do it, then no one else could, with the sole exception of Fabius Bile. It's a pretty straight forward argument.
Cybernetics can easily accommodate for the statline of an Astartes. They won't be actual Marines, but can easily be equivalent.
Well I mean I can buy the heretek storyline for female marines, while not actual Imperial Spacemarines, you just use the same rules
Holy heckin heck. Let's all move on from the Femstartes. Can we just call them genetically enhanced and call it a day?
sure some women can be genetically augmented into super soldiers who wear power armor - they just wouldn't be Space Marines
Again, not an outright statement of 'they can't be space marines', but an appeal to just agree with the poster and drop the idea of female Astartes completely in favour of 'not-Astartes'. I think the intention is clear.
Ynneadwraith wrote: i do want them to be treated exactly the same as any other break from the lore by the people in this community, which they aren't (as evidenced by the weight of anecdotes about how they're treated differently from others, and the admission by Machu who has been one of my staunchest opponents)
I don't see myself as your opponent. Also not sure what I "admitted" - I never argued that the femarine concept received the same amount of pushback as other ideas diverging from the published background or that this didn't have something to do with gender. You have repeatedly stated that you can't think of any explanation for this other than 40k fans being sexists. And I have repeatedly offered another explanation. By characterizing me as your opponent, are you saying that you absolutely reject my explanation such that you can still only explain it by accusing 40k fans of sexism?
Sorry, I knew that was the wrong word to use but I couldn't think of the right one! I prefer 'partner in discussion' as you've been most helpful in helping me get to the bottom of this
As a clarification, I don't reject your explanation (provided it's the symbol-of-trolling one which I thought held up quite well). I'm not sold on the marginalisation thing, as I can see that explaining Ginsu's comments of 'don't bring your politics into my 40k', although I think that quote was actually used against him. However, Ginsu was one voice among many, many other posters such that I think that 'feeling marginalised' isn't a very strong explanation for the community reaction.
Apologies if I wasn't clear in this quote:
Ynneadwraith wrote: i do want them to be treated exactly the same as any other break from the lore by the people in this community, which they aren't (as evidenced by the weight of anecdotes about how they're treated differently from others, and the admission by Machu who has been one of my staunchest opponents)
What I meant by that is that both myself and yourself agree that femmarines are treated differently (by generating more pushback than anything else), and that this is because the concept involves gender. This is the statement of yours I was agreeing with:
But like I said, we both already agree that the femarine concept (a) generates the most pushback and (b) this is because the concept involves gender.
Now, I must say that I feel that we've got as far as we can in this debate without actually supporting things with harder evidence, and by continuing it further we risk just getting caught up in arguing back and forth without getting anywhere. I don't want anyone to think that I'm just saying my bit and then dropping the mic, so if anyone has any further comments about my little experiment or anything I've said thus far then I'll be happy to acknowledge them and take them into consideration
I'm just moving that now's as good a point as any to pack up and wait for some actual proper evidence to come in
I really, really, really want to add that I don't think anyone here's been out of order in the things they've said, or is to be singled out for their behaviour, or anything that would result in me appearing to be looking down on anyone else. Believe it or not, I really think this discussion has been valuable, even if we don't do any experimentation to take this further. I don't want to discourage anyone from discussing 40k lore whatever the degree of enthusiasm, and I really hope that I haven't offended anyone or made anyone feel bad because that's not what I want to do at all! I'm just as likely as the next person to be doing things unconsciously that are due to biases I'm not aware of. TBH all I wanted to do was point it out at the start and have people stop and think 'is this what's driving my thought process?'
Ha well I am certainly not defending the fluff in question. Maybe you missed where I explicitly criticized it:
But someone decided to "rationalize" the exclusively male SM ranks by appeal to fictional technosorcery, which in turn exists solely for the sake of that rationalization. It's a fluff tautology - there is no reason to accept it apart from the fact that it exists. And its existence is entirely and always provisional. So of course it's weak and unconvincing.
Again, this is why I'd prefer if the in-universe reason that SM are all-male be sexism.
The idea of a hidebound institution that persists in doing things the way they have always been done? Yep, that's the IoM alright.
Manchu wrote: Ha well I am certainly not defending the fluff in question. Maybe you missed where I explicitly criticized it:
But someone decided to "rationalize" the exclusively male SM ranks by appeal to fictional technosorcery, which in turn exists solely for the sake of that rationalization. It's a fluff tautology - there is no reason to accept it apart from the fact that it exists. And its existence is entirely and always provisional. So of course it's weak and unconvincing.
Again, this is why I'd prefer if the in-universe reason that SM are all-male be sexism.
The idea of a hidebound institution that persists in doing things the way they have always been done? Yep, that's the IoM alright.
Aha I did miss that! Yeah that makes a lot more sense for me than the biological technobabble, and would also make it less controversial to flaunt which would help everyone I think
Ynneadwraith wrote: I'm not quite following what you mean by 'begging the question'. Can you explain?
Begging the question means assuming the conclusion. Like I said, your actual hypothesis is "the femarine concept generates the most pushback because the people pushing back are sexist." You would be assuming your conclusion by defining pushback to the femarines concept as sexist.
Ynneadwraith wrote: we cannot say "Topics A and B are both controversial but only Topic A has to do with gender. If Topic A has more pushback than Topic B then it must be because Topic A involves gender"
i meant that as an example of a sound argument - although sure your qualification ("probably involves gender") is better. But like I said, we both already agree that the femarine concept (a) generates the most pushback and (b) this is because the concept involves gender. Where we disagree is, you believe the operative factor is the sexism of 40k fans - whereas I believe the operative factor is this phenomenon of marginalization (including but not limited to "colonization") which created 40k fans - and all nerds - to begin with.
Ynneadwraith wrote: However, finding another subject that is similar to female Space Marines in the 'history for trolling' department would help make the results stronger.
I don't think there is anything even remotely like the concept of femarines for this purpose because it is so strongly tied to a specific trend in mainstream political culture. However, if you wanted to test whether 40k fans are sexist, maybe you could start a thread about an all-female IG regiment and see how that goes. But of course, I can tell you the result: posters will say "that already exists in the fluff."
Crimson wrote: Gender representation in 40K is gak, and yes, it is kinda sexist. This does not mean that liking 40K makes you sexist, but denying that there is a problem probably does.
Oh please yourself.
Manchu wrote: And if anything about 40k - as a product line - is sexist, it is definitely the lack of Guardswomen models. That is an example of applicably "dragging politics into it."
Manchu wrote: ... contrast this to the inexcusable lack of Guardswomen figures - while political, this is also a non-theoretical concern: (1) Guardswomen are not headcannon and (2) there is current, demonstrable market demand for Guardswomen models.
Crimson wrote: Manchu, could you stop derailing this thread with your politics?
Manchu wrote: The only politics I've dragged into this thread involves advocating female IG figs - but you're right, that's off-topic (I only brought it up because it was a useful counter example).
Not at all. The dominant culture has started to consume IPs that were produced by nerd culture. That does not make mainstream people nerds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DizzyStorey wrote: I believe the Tau are complicated. I think they believe the Ethereals are the only ones capable of bringing the greater good but that if you agree with them you can be assigned a place within the empire ( under the ethereals of course ) ware you are free to progress and prove yourselves worthy.
If the Greater Good is just this simple, rational concept that is race-blind ... then why are the Ethereals necessary? Why is it that only the Ethereals can shepherd the Empire in the path of the Greater Good?
More people are self identifying than nerds than ever before though. Cause these mainstream adaptions are reaching more viewers and people than ever before, finding super hero, gaming or starwars merchendise in a store is no longer a specialty thing but is just normal, It is very influential in todays world. Nerd culture is no longer this minor oppressed group, if somebody is made fun of for liking video games or comic books it would be met with confusion.
And keep in mind the ethearials led the Tau from the stone age to a technological powerhouse in only a thousand years, I can see why they would believe that they and they only could lead the galaxy to a better future.
DizzyStorey wrote: More people are self identifying than nerds than ever before though.
I get to do another "in my day" post LOL. In my day, people did not self-identify as nerds. A nerd was identified by others via ostracization. Nerds exist because other people excluded them. They retreated into fantastical worlds as an escape. They made up games and told stories to create a refuge from the mainstream that rejected them. Now the mainstream consumes those games and stories. By self-identifying as nerds, normies are once again kicking the nerds out - this time out of being "nerds." Nothing jas really changed.
Ethereals - sure, fanatical loyalty to the Ethereals makes sense for the Tau. Before the Ethereals, the Tau race was teetering on the break of extinction by suicide ... or at least that is the history promoted by the power structure dominated by the Ethereal caste. But why does Ethereal domination make sense to Vespid or Kroot or humans? The Ethereals are not the saviors of these races. Plus, like I said, if the Greater Good is race-blind then why are only Tau qualified to actually rule the Empire?
And the Tau weren't in the stone age, they had black powder weapons. From there it took them another 1000 years to get to their current tech level Took e'm 2000 years to go from prehistoric to black powder, so still pretty fast.
I think Tau are meant to be kinda a look at humanity to say, look at how advance we could of been if it wasn't for our real world politics, religions and wars
GodDamUser wrote: I think Tau are meant to be kinda a look at humanity to say, look at how advance we could of been if it wasn't for our real world politics, religions and wars
Ha so we could have reached out to the stars ... to get rekt by civilizations built on religion and war!
This whole "They aren't actually nerds! They just call themselves nerds" Is called elitism and if anything I think nerds nowadays have become the bullies in so many cases, especially involving racism and sexism within the nerd communities, allegations of feminists in gaming getting rape threats and death threats and people being chased out of chatrooms cause they are pinned as a "Fake gamer girl" Is just... well its horrible, and by no means are nerds these victims we hear people say they are.
GodDamUser wrote: I think Tau are meant to be kinda a look at humanity to say, look at how advance we could of been if it wasn't for our real world politics, religions and wars
No.
The Tau were created to sell models to robot-obsessed weebs. And, I suspect, to troll the hardcores who are all about GRIMDERP and MEHTAL.
as someone who has received death threats I find them vastly overrated; meanwhile in real life nerds are tortured by their peers every day
GW has been so out of touch/outright hostile to customers for such a long time, it is hard to imagine a time when they were trying to capitalize on market trends, like burgeoning interest in anime
DizzyStorey wrote: More people are self identifying than nerds than ever before though.
I get to do another "in my day" post LOL. In my day, people did not self-identify as nerds. A nerd was identified by others via ostracization. Nerds exist because other people excluded them. They retreated into fantastical worlds as an escape. They made up games and told stories to create a refuge from the mainstream that rejected them. Now the mainstream consumes those games and stories. By self-identifying as nerds, normies are once again kicking the nerds out - this time out of being "nerds." Nothing jas really changed.
Ethereals - sure, fanatical loyalty to the Ethereals makes sense for the Tau. Before the Ethereals, the Tau race was teetering on the break of extinction by suicide ... or at least that is the history promoted by the power structure dominated by the Ethereal caste. But why does Ethereal domination make sense to Vespid or Kroot or humans? The Ethereals are not the saviors of these races. Plus, like I said, if the Greater Good is race-blind then why are only Tau qualified to actually rule the Empire?
I dont know how old you are but when I was growing up this was never the case, nerds were just one of many social circles of self identifier labels and were no less or more important than anyone else, although those who self identified as nerds were often elitist, looking down on others and ostrisizing anyone who tried to enjoy there hobbies, i remember one occasion ware i was told not to play magic the gathering cause i was too stupid to keep up. So no i dont believe in the victim complex that nerds are these ever underdogs and the downtrotten of society. they are like everyone else, some are dicks, some are cool and for the most part they use pointles slabels to self identify... I dont even use the term nerd anymore.
Oh and about the Ethereals.
The way the Tau see it is when you join the empire you are basically apart of the force that serves the eathereals, you are basically a pawn for the greater good, you are given something to believe in and put to work. ITs not equality but it sure beats some of the evil horrible stuff everyware else in the galaxy.
Basically I think they view it not on a race by race basis but on a unity basis, get everyone under a single caste is the best chance the galaxy has for "The greater good" they have faith in the ethereals so they assume everyone else should too.
So they are race blind, to a point. Afterall they cant be too utopian, they are entitled to some selfishness no? The ethereals are in charge not cause they are tau but cause they are the ethereals if that makes any sense? at least thats how the other races will see it. And whatever they are doing its sorta working they did save the Tau so I can see why they have such faith in them.
Put this way? I think "Your good but not as good as the ethereals" Is much more progressive than "Die Xenos scum! For the Empra!"
GodDamUser wrote: I think Tau are meant to be kinda a look at humanity to say, look at how advance we could of been if it wasn't for our real world politics, religions and wars
No.
The Tau were created to sell models to robot-obsessed weebs. And, I suspect, to troll the hardcores who are all about GRIMDERP and MEHTAL.
Like I said, no one wanted to be called a nerd or a geek when I was a kid. It wasn't just another hue in the vibrant rainbow of everyone being allowed to "self-identify." There were blockbuster sci fi and superhero movies in those days, too. Pretty much everyone liked them but that's obviously not what got you bullied. Same thing when the MtG boom first hit. Thing is, some people liked this stuff not because it was "the thing" for that month or whatever but because it was a kind of refuge for them
Wait are you saying love of anime and putting down your own culture while idealizing a different culture could go together?
Sure why not. The Models are to appease the Anime, Mecha loving fans.. while at the same time taking a jab at humanity with social commentary in the fluff saying that these guys worked together and advanced so far in such a short time.
I dont know how old you are but when I was growing up this was never the case, nerds were just one of many social circles of self identifier labels and were no less or more important than anyone else, although those who self identified as nerds were often elitist, looking down on others and ostrisizing anyone who tried to enjoy there hobbies, i remember one occasion ware i was told not to play magic the gathering cause i was too stupid to keep up. So no i dont believe in the victim complex that nerds are these ever underdogs and the downtrotten of society. they are like everyone else, some are dicks, some are cool and for the most part they use pointles slabels to self identify... I dont even use the term nerd anymore.
Oh and about the Ethereals.
The way the Tau see it is when you join the empire you are basically apart of the force that serves the eathereals, you are basically a pawn for the greater good, you are given something to believe in and put to work. ITs not equality but it sure beats some of the evil horrible stuff everyware else in the galaxy.
Basically I think they view it not on a race by race basis but on a unity basis, get everyone under a single caste is the best chance the galaxy has for "The greater good" they have faith in the ethereals so they assume everyone else should too.
So they are race blind, to a point. Afterall they cant be too utopian, they are entitled to some selfishness no? The ethereals are in charge not cause they are tau but cause they are the ethereals if that makes any sense? at least thats how the other races will see it. And whatever they are doing its sorta working they did save the Tau so I can see why they have such faith in them.
Put this way? I think "Your good but not as good as the ethereals" Is much more progressive than "Die Xenos scum! For the Empra!"
I don't think it's quite so simple as racism only at the top. It's actually more like racism at the core. The basic principle of the Empire is Tau first, non-Tau maybe second if it's convenient.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wait you just posted the same thing from last page?
Manchu wrote: I don't think it's quite so simple as racism only at the top. It's actually more like racism at the core. The basic principle of the Empire is Tau first, non-Tau maybe second if it's convenient.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wait you just posted the same thing from last page?
I see it as you are only as Tau as your beliefs so those who rebel against tau occupation are basically worthless and those who are the most dedicated to there vision slowly earn more and more respect. At least thats what i gleam from reading about them. Those who are equal must rival the faith of the Tau in dedication. Really its "Your good if you embrace our culture and way of thinking" so an Ork even if it becomes a member of the Tau would probably never fully gain there trust by its very nature and will always be a tool to be deployed and nothing else, but a human who is basically a tau in all but race will get to be able to rise and fall in the ranks under the ethereals ( usually stuck as fire cast or builders ) and those who rebel or will not adhere get starilized and ignored.
Thats what I see anyway, it comes up over and over how those who are dedicated and match there vision gain favor and those who do not are cast aside or used. You seem to be judged on the degree that you bow your head.
Which isnt a good thing but its not a super evil thing either. Prisoners get treated good ( even if it is just to indoctrinate them later ) and if i am choosing betwene starilization or getting my entire planet glassed cause the mutant population got a bit too high? ( Imperium style ) Than sign me up for some of that ethereal worship.
They just seem to believe that the Tau are the only ones who can lead the galaxy toward a better future ( which if i am being fair to them, it was there idea so let them have that )
Yes i did repost by accdent I thought it didnt post when it did, i just realized that myself.
DizzyStorey wrote: This whole "They aren't actually nerds! They just call themselves nerds" Is called elitism and if anything I think nerds nowadays have become the bullies in so many cases, especially involving racism and sexism within the nerd communities, allegations of feminists in gaming getting rape threats and death threats and people being chased out of chatrooms cause they are pinned as a "Fake gamer girl" Is just... well its horrible, and by no means are nerds these victims we hear people say they are.
I'm sorry Manchu, but that does sound a heck of a lot like elitism to me, and I will agree wholeheartedly with DizzyStorey in this case. That's without touching on the hate that 'fake gamer girls' get which is another issue I could get very, very passionate about.
If there's one thing the world in general doesn't need, it's more people being sh*tty to each other for whatever reason. Now that goes both ways. From people who are just now discovering how damn cool all this geek stuff is, and from people who are already into this geek stuff and feeling threatened by the new people coming in.
It's sh*tty if the new folk are nasty to the old guard (very few of them are).
It's sh*tty if the old guard are nasty to the new folk (very few of them are).
All of it needs to stop regardless. It's just pointless.
DizzyStorey wrote: Put this way? I think "Your good but not as good as the ethereals" Is much more progressive than "Die Xenos scum! For the Empra!"
You know, I don't know. I actually think that the Tau might be just as bad as the Imperium despite appearances. At least in the Imperium there is the possibility of freedom to move within social ranks (it's suggested that in the billions of worlds of the Imperium there are many worlds that we would consider somewhat normal). It's backwards and dystopian, but with the Tau you have a fantastic level of social discrimination between what I've come to understand as separate subspecies of the same race.
So, the Tau are space-racists to their own people, and the Imperium don't care what your race is so long as you're the same species. Sounds like the Imperium is one step up on the progressive scale to me
Although that is purely my impression, and probably a bit of an ulterior motive in wanting Tau to be as grimdark as possible to fit into the setting better.
DizzyStorey wrote: This whole "They aren't actually nerds! They just call themselves nerds" Is called elitism and if anything I think nerds nowadays have become the bullies in so many cases, especially involving racism and sexism within the nerd communities, allegations of feminists in gaming getting rape threats and death threats and people being chased out of chatrooms cause they are pinned as a "Fake gamer girl" Is just... well its horrible, and by no means are nerds these victims we hear people say they are.
I'm sorry Manchu, but that does sound a heck of a lot like elitism to me, and I will agree wholeheartedly with DizzyStorey in this case. That's without touching on the hate that 'fake gamer girls' get which is another issue I could get very, very passionate about.
If there's one thing the world in general doesn't need, it's more people being sh*tty to each other for whatever reason. Now that goes both ways. From people who are just now discovering how damn cool all this geek stuff is, and from people who are already into this geek stuff and feeling threatened by the new people coming in.
It's sh*tty if the new folk are nasty to the old guard (very few of them are).
It's sh*tty if the old guard are nasty to the new folk (very few of them are).
All of it needs to stop regardless. It's just pointless.
DizzyStorey wrote: Put this way? I think "Your good but not as good as the ethereals" Is much more progressive than "Die Xenos scum! For the Empra!"
You know, I don't know. I actually think that the Tau might be just as bad as the Imperium despite appearances. At least in the Imperium there is the possibility of freedom to move within social ranks (it's suggested that in the billions of worlds of the Imperium there are many worlds that we would consider somewhat normal). It's backwards and dystopian, but with the Tau you have a fantastic level of social discrimination between what I've come to understand as separate subspecies of the same race.
So, the Tau are space-racists to their own people, and the Imperium don't care what your race is so long as you're the same species. Sounds like the Imperium is one step up on the progressive scale to me
Although that is purely my impression, and probably a bit of an ulterior motive in wanting Tau to be as grimdark as possible to fit into the setting better.
^ ^ Thank you for the support again it makes me feel better..
And I dunno tell that to some random peasant born in the mines on some hiveworld. I am sure they will have the chance to reach the hights of the lords of terra, but most likely if you are 99% of the trillions upon trillions upton trillions of humans born on one of the billions upon billions of planets you are going to live and die in some slave labor cespit under the thumb of some lord. That is if you are not drafted to go be canon fodder for a tyranid swarm or getting your brain scooped out and turned into a servitor. ( even that probably is only a 1% chance of escaping there hellish existence )
Most of the higher ranks are as bad as the lower ranks, having your eyes replaced with tubes connected to your brain to power some horrible weapon or being fused into a space ship... Humans of the imperium live hellish short lives and some planets even employ caste systems of there own enacting every possible local government over billions of planets.
At least with the Tau there is some purpose and security, even if you are surving a higher caste.
DizzyStorey wrote: At least with the Tau there is some purpose and security, even if you are serving a higher caste.
Or you'll be castrated, tossed into the front lines with inadequate provisions to defend a race that ultimately believes you are inferior and will most likely suffer from the same fate as Humanity pre-DAoT but has no Emperor to save them.
DizzyStorey wrote: At least with the Tau there is some purpose and security, even if you are serving a higher caste.
Or you'll be castrated, tossed into the front lines with inadequate provisions to defend a race that ultimately believes you are inferior and will most likely suffer from the same fate as Humanity pre-DAoT but has no Emperor to save them.
As far as I can tell that is a punishment for rebellion, to breed only the most loyal and good temperment of the humanstock. Not good behavior.. but better than being glassed by the space marines for some petty reason.
"oops.. not enough of you are worshiping god right, blowing up the planet now"
According to one definition, nerds are people who take the elitist position that "you aren't good enough to like what they like." They call themselves nerds as a matter of vanity. According to another definition, nerds are people criticized because they like something the "wrong way" (e.g., too intensely). They are called nerds by others as a slur. ITT, we have actual (as opposed to alleged/anecdotal) examples of the latter but none of the former. That's worth thinking about.
- - - - -
The argument in favor of the Tau seems to be, at least they give you a choice. But keep in mind that this "choice" is - serve or die. The Tau sweeten the deal by offering material comfort and self-affirming propaganda. But underneath the veneer of mercy is the cold reality of slavery on pain of extermination.
To me, this doesn't amount to the Tau having the moral high ground. It is just another example of their lack of experience. The Imperium's murderous hatred of xenos did not begin as a mindless prejudice. The Emperor rationally decided that large-scale, long-term coexistence with xenos was incompatible with humanity dominating the galaxy.
As we know the Tau were "lucky" to be shielded from the IoM for millennia and continue to be lucky in that now that the IoM knows about the Tau it remains too distracted to bother exterminating them. But the Tau are also lucky in a third way - they are lucky to have run across species early on that they could either dominate (Kroot, Vespid) or exterminate. Now that they have run into humans and Orks, that part of their luck has run out.
In the short term and on a small scale, human prisoners and refugees can be enslaved, brainwashed, and managed like beasts of burden. It is totally understandable that a particular person might prefer this to simply being murdered. But the Ethereals must already understand that humans and orks cannot be dominated as species - and therefore they will eventually have to be exterminated.
It's really not meaningfully different from the IoM's approach when you look at it on larger scales. To make the same point in reverse, perhaps humanity would also give sentient xenos the same "choice" if the human state was as vulnerable and naive as the Tau Empire. Indeed, more isolated groups of humans often perforce coexist with xenos.
Yes but probably for the better - especially for someone new. I think it will mean the basic ruleset will be streamlined and there will be even more flexibility for creating forces, which seems right up your alley. This is the first time I have been excited about a new edition of 40k for ... nine years? Wow.
Manchu wrote: According to one definition, nerds are people who take the elitist position that "you aren't good enough to like what they like." They call themselves nerds as a matter of vanity. According to another definition, nerds are people criticized because they like something the "wrong way" (e.g., too intensely). They are called nerds by others as a slur. ITT, we have actual (as opposed to alleged/anecdotal) examples of the latter but none of the former. That's worth thinking about.
Not quite. It's not nerds being defined as people who take the elitist position that "you aren't goof enough to like what they like". More accurate to say that there are members of pretty much every society or culture you can think of who look down on other members who they don't deem to be 'worthy', and are thus elitist. However, that's not quite the whole picture. It's not just the thoughts that someone is not worthy that make something elitist (for instance, someone may have actually proved that they don't really care about geeky stuff, they just do it because it's cool to be a geek now). What makes something elitist is basing that judgement on something that is arbitrary or unrelated to whether they have actually proved themselves to be valuable members of the community.
This is why I am slightly concerned that some of the things you are saying in this thread could be construed as you being elitist, as it would appear that you are looking down on people who are not 'old-guard' geek-types and blaming a lot of the problems we have identified in this thread on the influx of new blood into the culture, purely because they are associated with a minority of unsavoury people who are wearing geekiness like a fashion while still retaining their original prejudices about the people who were geeks before them. I don't think you're actually being elitist, but I am slightly concerned that some of the things you are suggesting could be construed that you are.
I think it's worth stepping away from this conversation at this point, both of us, because it's getting to the point where we might end up saying things that are counterproductive and not really accurate to how we actually feel.
Manchu wrote: According to one definition, nerds are people who take the elitist position that "you aren't good enough to like what they like." They call themselves nerds as a matter of vanity. According to another definition, nerds are people criticized because they like something the "wrong way" (e.g., too intensely). They are called nerds by others as a slur. ITT, we have actual (as opposed to alleged/anecdotal) examples of the latter but none of the former. That's worth thinking about.
I think this is one of those situations where one can use honestly and without any irony the phrase 'check your privilege.' There is probably a reason for you personally not experiencing the former.
DizzyStorey wrote: At least with the Tau there is some purpose and security, even if you are serving a higher caste.
Or you'll be castrated, tossed into the front lines with inadequate provisions to defend a race that ultimately believes you are inferior and will most likely suffer from the same fate as Humanity pre-DAoT but has no Emperor to save them.
As far as I can tell that is a punishment for rebellion, to breed only the most loyal and good temperment of the humanstock. Not good behavior.. but better than being glassed by the space marines for some petty reason.
The fact that you said "humanstock" in that sentence reaffirms my belief that the Tau are worse that the IoM.
"oops.. not enough of you are worshiping god right, blowing up the planet now"
When those gods happen to be ones that'll make you into a zombie, keep your head as a trophy, literally rape your skull or use it as art or one that'll turn you inside out, yeah... I think I'd glass those planets pretty fast.
You're trying to police the conversation. Saying "you're not being elitist but your comments could be construed as elitist" means that you could attack me even though you are simultaneously assuring me that you're not attacking me This is either a passive-aggressive attack or a threat. It is also made in bad faith because you are going to have to misconstrue my position to make the attack.
For my part, I plan on sticking to the substance of the conversation. I don't think it matters whether someone holds themselves above others for an arbitrary or non-arbitrary reason - it's the holding themselves above others part that makes them elitist. No one here has posted words to the effect of, You are not worthy to post here or like this IP or participate in this hobby. Now let's try that in reverse; what if I said, this hobby or this forum or this IP is not worthy of me unless my tastes are accomodated? That is elitist.
Take it a step further: any resistence to the accomodation of my taste is racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, colonialsim, bigotry, elitism, perversion, malice, wrong, and (ultimately) evil. Give me what I want - or - you are scum. This is not the way to join a community. Joining a community is a matter of knocking on the door rather than battering it down. Who batters doors down? Invaders and police.
This discussion so far has been pretty abstract. In real life - as opposed to on the internet, wherebthe opposite is often true - a person who starts by making demands is going to end by being avoided. People generally engage in social hobbies to get away from stress and controversy. Nerdy hobbies like 40k owe a lot to people wanting to escape being bullied and judged.
@Crimson
I didn't say I have never experienced being judged unworthy by elitists. You just assumed that. Maybe because of your privilege.
@Tactical_Spam
"Humanstock" is definitely a telling phrase. And yeah, I think you are referring to the Tau's relative inexperience with Chaos, too - very good point. Like I said, maybe in the early days of the first human space empire, humans also believed that some aliens could be "usefully employed" (read enslaved) ... maybe because they encountered them early on instead of Orks or Daemoms. But the Emperor knew what was really lurking out there and that's why IoM orthodoxy regarding xenos diplomacy is the way it is.
Manchu wrote: People generally engage in social hobbies to get away from stress and controversy. Nerdy hobbies like 40k owe a lot to people wanting to escape being bullied and judged.
Exactly. Escape things like sexism. So it is kinda sad to be confronted with 'no girls can't do that' even in this fictional setting. And then being judged and called a troll when asking for equal representation.
Plus, there has never been a time when there weren't girls who are also nerds or geeks. If anything has changed on those grounds, it's just more OK nowadays for guys and girls to nerd out over the same IPs, which is great.
Hey man, i wasn't trying to police the conversation or anything like that I was just pointing out that i think some of the points your suggesting mught be misconstrued as elitism. Not policing anything, just in a very friendly manner suggesting that your comments might be coming off as something that you don't mean them to!
No passive-agressiveness at all! Just a friendly pointing out rather than actually saying anything becauee i don't want to be seen as calling you out or anything because you dont deserve or warrant that
I want to say, i don't think you're an elitist, and i'm not saying that you are either. Im just saying that a couple of things you've been assetting could be construed (or misconstrued, that works too) as elitism, and as someone who has a lot of respect for you i don't want people to think that
It's not an attack it's just that a couple of the comparisons posted between 'old guard type' geeks and 'new blood type geeks where the latter is suggested to be inferior to the former isn't what i think you're trying to get across
For the record, i get your point. There is animosity that is present because the newfound popularity of geek culture has brought in people who in times past (and even now) treated geeky people badly. I understand that is the point that you are making. I'm just urging you to make sure that the comments being posted are absolutely clear that that's the point you're making and that you're not suggesting that there is any sort of elitism in yourself as an old-guard geek towards new blood coming in at the same time as these people who don't deserve our respect because they're sh*tty people.
I know that this is not what you are suggesting. I just really really don't want what you're saying in this discussion where things are being looked at more closely than in any other discussion i've participated in to be misconstrued as something that isn't what you think.
I don't agree with the "old guard" versus "new blood" distinction you introduced. DizzyStorey posted that people "self-identify" as nerds - apparently for the purpose of excluding non-nerds. I remember the reverse - you got excluded by being called a nerd. Maybe kids today call you something other than "nerd" to exclude you. But I am pretty sure it still happens. And the excluded people still find their way to the same nerdy hobbies that nerds in the past did. I just take issue with the way people act when they "get here." Like I said, do they knock on the door or try to batter it down.
As far as "new blood" ... AFAIK Dakka Dakka is like 99% new blood (including me) but that might be because I consider "old guard" to mean something more than just having been a gamer for longer. If you want to see what I mean by "old guard" try reading The Miniatures Page or Lead Adventure (they are great forums by the way). The actual old guard - most people call it "grognard" - mindset is more about DIY whereas us "new bloods" tend to like our games "out of the box" ... something GW has catered to for a long time now. And because this is mostly a 40k site, that "new blood" mentality seems to be stronger here.
Manchu wrote: I don't agree with the "old guard" versus "new blood" distinction you introduced. DizzyStorey posted that people "self-identify" as nerds - apparently for the purpose of excluding non-nerds. I remember the reverse - you got excluded by being called a nerd. Maybe kids today call you something other than "nerd" to exclude you. But I am pretty sure it still happens. And the excluded people still find their way to the same nerdy hobbies that nerds in the past did. I just take issue with the way people act when they "get here." Like I said, do they knock on the door or try to batter it down.
As far as "new blood" ... AFAIK Dakka Dakka is like 99% new blood (including me) but that might be because I consider "old guard" to mean something more than just having been a gamer for longer. If you want to see what I mean by "old guard" try reading The Miniatures Page or Lead Adventure (they are great forums by the way). The actual old guard - most people call it "grognard" - mindset is more about DIY whereas us "new bloods" tend to like our games "out of the box" ... something GW has catered to for a long time now. And because this is mostly a 40k site, that "new blood" mentality seems to be stronger here.
Yeah I know you don't agree with the 'old guard vs new blood' thing that's why I was concerned that some of your comments might be misconstrued as pointing in that direction, cos I genuinely think you're a decent person and wouldn't want that.
I hope I can be really frank without causing offence, but the reason I bring it up is because right at the start when we first started discussing, you assumed I might be a 'new blood' type who was just coming into the discussion to push an agenda based on the fact that I was suggesting that 'geekiness' should be about inclusiveness (which I still believe to be the case), which coloured your perception of me at that point. That was cleared up, but from there we've got further into a discussion where on a number of occasions you've commented suggesting that a lot of the animosity between people in this thread could have been caused by the above perception (new folks coming in, trying to 'mainstream' 40k).
Now, I absolutely know that that's not what you were going for, and I really don't want anyone else thinking that of you because I genuinely think you're a decent bloke (if you are a bloke! I shouldn't assume...) with his head screwed on straight I just get the sinking feeling that if we carry on this discussion much further without any sort of solid empirical evidence to back up our hypotheses that we'll slip back into the general melee of discussion we had early on in this thread which will just cause a whole lot of hurt and misunderstanding
I feel like we've both made fairly reasoned arguments in the absence of much empirical data, and now is a pretty good time to wrap things up until more new info comes in (lest we end up arguing our points further to the point that we're so adamant about them that we say stuff that suggests something other than what we actually mean).
Manchu wrote: People generally engage in social hobbies to get away from stress and controversy. Nerdy hobbies like 40k owe a lot to people wanting to escape being bullied and judged.
Exactly. Escape things like sexism. So it is kinda sad to be confronted with 'no girls can't do that' even in this fictional setting. And then being judged and called a troll when asking for equal representation.
Now, for reasons I've explained in the first part of this comment I've taken a step back from these discussions, but I have to just mention that this comment perfectly sums up my viewpoint on this.
I will say that for me it's not a condemnation of people in any way, or a calling out of people, or saying that geek/nerd culture is an outlier for having this. It's something that is present in damn near every single layer of society, and all that needs to happen at any layer is for people to be aware of it and try and do something to stop themselves being affected by it. It may seem silly or insignificant, or judgemental and elitist, but all it's really about is just being nice to people rather than not nice in a completely unintentional way.
Hell, the ideal mid-point between all of this discussion is for the next time femmarines comes up to say 'the fluff doesn't support it as it states that Astartes are male, but that's pretty gender-biased in our modern society so if you want to bend that fluff for your own personal army I'm cool with that' Again I want to stress that I'm not calling out anyone who didn't say that, or suggesting that you should feel bad, or anything like that. It's just something to think about if you want to be a nicer person to other people as I know from my own personal experience that there's things I do unconsciously that I would not want to do if I was aware of them, and only by having them suggested to me have I come to realise that I've been doing them.
Bobthehero wrote: That's assuming there's only 1 way sexism outside of nerdom.
Although I don't think you're correct in the assumption that Crimson is assuming there's only 1 type of sexism outside of nerdom, you do bring up an important point. Gender-bias does in fact happen in both directions. Arguing that it doesn't is just a patent falsehood. Unfortunately, in our society the vast majority of gender-bias happens from men towards women, or from masculine things towards feminine things, for a whole host of historical and cultural reasons.
Either way, regardless of which discrimination people are fleeing from, I don't expect to find it here. I can guarantee you that I would be exploring in exactly the same detail something I suspected could be gender-biased towards men. Not because I'm a crusader of any sort. Just because I really don't like people being sh*tty to each other whatever the reason, especially if it's completely unintentional. The world just does not need more of that.
Manchu wrote: Plus, there has never been a time when there weren't girls who are also nerds or geeks. If anything has changed on those grounds, it's just more OK nowadays for guys and girls to nerd out over the same IPs, which is great.
This is true and very, very good
However, just because something is the best it has ever been does not mean that it is fixed or not a problem that needs to be explored wherever it might be present.
Manchu wrote: According to one definition, nerds are people who take the elitist position that "you aren't good enough to like what they like." They call themselves nerds as a matter of vanity. According to another definition, nerds are people criticized because they like something the "wrong way" (e.g., too intensely). They are called nerds by others as a slur. ITT, we have actual (as opposed to alleged/anecdotal) examples of the latter but none of the former. That's worth thinking about.
- - - - -
The argument in favor of the Tau seems to be, at least they give you a choice. But keep in mind that this "choice" is - serve or die. The Tau sweeten the deal by offering material comfort and self-affirming propaganda. But underneath the veneer of mercy is the cold reality of slavery on pain of extermination.
To me, this doesn't amount to the Tau having the moral high ground. It is just another example of their lack of experience. The Imperium's murderous hatred of xenos did not begin as a mindless prejudice. The Emperor rationally decided that large-scale, long-term coexistence with xenos was incompatible with humanity dominating the galaxy.
As we know the Tau were "lucky" to be shielded from the IoM for millennia and continue to be lucky in that now that the IoM knows about the Tau it remains too distracted to bother exterminating them. But the Tau are also lucky in a third way - they are lucky to have run across species early on that they could either dominate (Kroot, Vespid) or exterminate. Now that they have run into humans and Orks, that part of their luck has run out.
In the short term and on a small scale, human prisoners and refugees can be enslaved, brainwashed, and managed like beasts of burden. It is totally understandable that a particular person might prefer this to simply being murdered. But the Ethereals must already understand that humans and orks cannot be dominated as species - and therefore they will eventually have to be exterminated.
It's really not meaningfully different from the IoM's approach when you look at it on larger scales. To make the same point in reverse, perhaps humanity would also give sentient xenos the same "choice" if the human state was as vulnerable and naive as the Tau Empire. Indeed, more isolated groups of humans often perforce coexist with xenos.
Yes but probably for the better - especially for someone new. I think it will mean the basic ruleset will be streamlined and there will be even more flexibility for creating forces, which seems right up your alley. This is the first time I have been excited about a new edition of 40k for ... nine years? Wow.
Oh? Also some new fluff and retcons so were gunna see some big changes? I know when D&D changes things its often night and day, a huge massive deal that almost re-writes its worlds.
Has anyone heard the news from adepticon about teasers for the new 40k ruleset?
This was posted over on TDC:
1. Movement stat is coming back.
2. Those who charge strike first.
3. Armour/save modifiers are coming back. Every weapon in your army will have its place.
4. Three ways to play like AOS.
5. Gain Command points and bonuses from playing the army how it is presented in the "Fluff".
6. Morale change to more like Demonic instability, or Battleshock if you will. no more all or nothing sweeping advances or whole unit running from shooting losses.
What anything would mean for the fluff I don't know! I do fear that it will end up closer and closer to 'herohammer' considering the success that Gathering Storm has had, which moves further away from the gritty, colossal scope and size grimdark universe we've come to know.
I don't know about anyone else, but telling stories through the eyes of a select few ultra-special characters makes the universe seem somehow...smaller...to me. Like it's only really the actions of a handful of people that actually affect anything, and the struggles of the billions of others defending (or attacking) their portion of the galaxy are inconsequential.
Might just be me on that though! Tricky to tell...
In the case of D&D, there are multiple official settings for the game. The Forgotten Realms has been the most prominent for the past three editions and is currently the default setting of the game. Not much about the settings change between editions with the major exception of the transition from 3.5 to 4E. The Forgotten Realms changed tremendously but there were also cosmological changes that applied across all of the settings. Then, in the transition between 4 and 5E, most of that changed back.
With 40k, transition from one edition to another has not been the occasion for major changes to the setting for a long time. There are two main reasons why some people are expecting big fluff changes with 8E. First, GW recently completely transformed its fantasy setting at the same time as radically changing the game (to be more like 40k actually). Second, nothing much happened in the 40k setting for a long time but recently there have been some big, unexpected changes - such as one of the loyalist Primarchs "waking up" from a 10,000 year long nap.
@Ynneadwraith
I can see what you mean - and yes I do think there is a tension between mainstream entitlement (the notion that all media must conform to "my tastes") and the existing fanbase of an IP. You may recall my simple explanation that fans don't like retcons precisely because they are fans. This is along the same line as the knock versus batter theme.
Really agree about a setting feeling smaller the more the big stories seem to be about a handful of people. This is the classic problem with Star Wars. I mean, we have this story about Cadia ... but it doesn't feel like a story about the Imperial Guard.
The Primarc Guiliman waking up could mean big changes fort he world! Such as a potential war betwene the ultra marines and the imperium!
A force of good and justice in the world!
Major tinkering with the gene-seed cause ya know... God king Emperer aint no god to a Primearch just a great man and his father.
Possible co-operation with Xenos ( which Guilliman was known to be quite tolerent of )
And ya know... some sanity returning to the world of man. Infact id go as far as to say this is probably going to be the plot of 8th edition and the reason we need all new Codexes. And gives them an excuse to change things and muck around with the status quo.
