Now I agree it’s totally retconable (and with frankly less lore gymnastics than Primaris), but that is what the lore has said previously without contradiction yet.
Although if we're assuming that not being specifically contradicted means it's still canon, Chief Librarian Tigurius is half Eldar...
Out of honest curiosity, if GW suddenly did change the lore, and released an entire female Astartes lineup, and I'll start a poll to this effect later, how many of you would flat out quit the hobby over that "Lore transgression"?
Gert wrote: If there was literally any evidence whatsoever of BL getting an author to write a book like that in that much detail now I could see your point. But considering BL hasn't done anything close to that sort of detail, I think ever, you seem to just be spouting nonsense. Tomb Raider 2013 was an 18 rated game, it was specifically marketed for adults. GW markets its product to people from like 8+.
Technically there is with the Konrad Curze Book (which I feel I could write better, since it really tests your knowledge of HHNL and Curze) as it has some topics that were just written pretty tastelessly imo.
I'll put it in Spoilers for Trigger warnings and such:
Spoiler:
The first is the totally not-Batman and Robin potential where he hangs a Criminal off a tower ledge who was "Cornering" an innocent lady on Nostramo with his mate.
Another is how Curze views Suicide as a crime on Nostramo and flays an attempted victim alive for trying. Like I say, pretty cringe and makes Curze into a very one-dimensional character. I feel the Author was given that character for a deadline rather than having the book passed onto an author who does care for the him and his Legion.
Then you Have the Damoncuabla, but I really like that grimdark piece of lore.
Personally, I don't care hobby-wise what you have if you have fem-marines or not. But if we really need to have them in the story then please GW, build up momentum for it like how they are doing with Fulgrim and Angron and don't do a Cawl hand-wave (I really despise Cawl as a character) Primaris over it and they suddenly show up. I feel that would be disrespectful to those who do want it.
For me I have been tempted for some Fem-Marines for a Creations of Bile force, where Bile kidnaps various Tyranid, GSC Bioforms and some Sisters of Battle, then steals some Necron tech to make perverted Frankenstien-esque monsters that biologically are Fem-Astartes but they look absolutely monstrous for "First generation" and further experiments would be further Generations to refine his work.
Given the proclivity for GW writers to put people in horrific situations, I don't think they would really shirk away from a chance to depict the brutality of what a female Astartes initiation ritual might look like. But then again, they have the chance to show Astartes as something other then mindless automatons that are only slightly able to deviate from their norms. But showing a female astartes, you would show the imperium breaking away from the "edicts" of the old Imperium and it's out dated science/thinking. What good is "evolving" humanity if only half of it can "evolve"? Female space marines would show a kink in the Emperor's manner, and force humanity to acknowledge he might have been wrong.
Technically there is with the Konrad Curze Book (which I feel I could write better, since it really tests your knowledge of HHNL and Curze) as it has some topics that were just written pretty tastelessly imo.
I'll put it in Spoilers for Trigger warnings and such:
The first is the totally not-Batman and Robin potential where he hangs a Criminal off a tower ledge who was "Cornering" an innocent lady on Nostramo with his mate.
Another is how Curze views Suicide as a crime on Nostramo and flays an attempted victim alive for trying. Like I say, pretty cringe and makes Curze into a very one-dimensional character. I feel the Author was given that character for a deadline rather than having the book passed onto an author who does care for the him and his Legion.
Then you Have the Damoncuabla, but I really like that grimdark piece of lore.
Personally, I don't care hobby-wise what you have if you have fem-marines or not. But if we really need to have them in the story then please GW, build up momentum for it like how they are doing with Fulgrim and Angron and don't do a Cawl hand-wave (I really despise Cawl as a character) Primaris over it and they suddenly show up. I feel that would be disrespectful to those who do want it.
For me I have been tempted for some Fem-Marines for a Creations of Bile force, where Bile kidnaps various Tyranid, GSC Bioforms and some Sisters of Battle, then steals some Necron tech to make perverted Frankenstien-esque monsters that biologically are Fem-Astartes but they look absolutely monstrous for "First generation" and further experiments would be further Generations to refine his work.
Few things here. Prince of Crows shows Curze's time as the Night Haunter on Nostramo from the outside perspective of Sevatar looking through Curze's mind. It's what Curze allows Sevatar to see. The book focusing on Curze himself does much better.
There is a vast difference between intense violence/gore and SA/R. If you watch a TV show/movie it will warn you about violent scenes AND sexual scenes. I've yet to read a 40k book that has anything more than heavily implied sexual encounters either. IIRC what that post was responding to was someone saying GW would only introduce female SM to have them sexually assaulted.
As for lore build up how long will that take? Daemon Primarchs have been coming to 40k since the 13th Black Crusade was first mentioned with the Primarchs returning to lead their Legions against the Imperium. Primaris have now been around for almost 4 years and the current timeline has advanced 35 years post-Rift.
The closest I've ever read of any sort of sexual encounter in one of the books was the implied Cain/Amberly tryst where his orderly walks in on them at the end of the book, and she's naked, and he's naked, and the orderly just turns around, and starts relaying orders or something silly. There was never anything in any book I've read showing more than hints. Now as far as sexual violence towards women, that is far from rare. There's been several books where it graphically depicts what is happening to a woman, usually involving some daemon or chaos sorcerer of slanesh. I think it was either Shadowsword or Baneblade where the young woman is ripped appart and turned into a living portal for daemons, or the scene with the baby, that whole book was messed up at times.
In the Eisenhorne books the BBEG he's chasing was a rampant sex criminal of some renown, I forget if it goes into any detail. But I know he was trying to work up a type of kharma bomb to open a gateway to Slanesh or something...
AoS had the Firmir, which were literal rape monsters, but nothing like that in 40k, oddly.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:So I'm going to assume this has been posted but you found some justification to dismiss the Lexicanum, but here goes...
Recruits must be fairly young, because implants often do not become fully functional if the recipient has reached a certain level of physical maturity. They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types. Only a small percentage of people are compatible to receive the implants and hypno-suggestion to turn them into Marines. Before the process of implantation begins the potential recruit receives tissue compatibility tests and psychological screening. If the testing proves successful the recruit becomes an aspirant. After the organ implantation process begins he becomes an neophyte. When the final implant is in place and the requisite training and hypnotherapy underway, he becomes a full brother. [1][2a][3]
You see, here's the problem with Lexicanum - it's this thing called sources and references.
The section which you cite is referenced by three sources - one from 1988, one from 1989 (and needs a citation), and another from 2002 which GW have stated isn't 100% accurate any more, and is not considered "modern" by GW themselves.
What does this mean? It means that the whole section you just referenced isn't necessarily accurate any more, because, as people have been asking for, no modern lore is corroborating it. I'm not saying it's "non-canon", but the importance of it is clearly questionable when it's not being reinforced by anything beyond 2002, it seems. Which is almost twenty years ago.
Lexicanum's great, but it's not a source in it's own right. Find your sources.
Lord Zarkov wrote:The specific comments I was originally replying to definitely read as it was *never* an explicit thing which is not correct. And it may be old, but plenty of old Lore is still valid, it’s mainly RT and early 2Ed stuff that’s from before the setting fully crystallised that is more notably and incompatibly divergent (and even some of that gets brought up from time to time - cf Sons of Medusa primaris in RT era camouflage scheme in this month’s WD). 3Ed and later stuff (Necrons aside) is generally still on point for the most part, just built on and evolved. Heck the whole HH series is based on the outline from the IA series. How old is too old?
Again, old lore is fine, but when people are using it as their rock to die upon, and it's not been reinforced for twenty years, you can see my skepticism as to its legitimacy.
I do hasten to add, women Astartes *were* once part of the faction. Clearly, if bits get brought back, like you say, why not that?
Less an actual contradiction/incompatibility (which are admittedly not uncommon), I really hate the ‘I don’t like it so it doesn’t count’ approach - regardless of if I agree with the source of dislike or not.
That's not what it is though. It's a "why is this still a thing - what is it adding, what is it limiting, is it doing an overall net positive, or a net negative" - it's holding it up critically and questioning "is this still necessary". And I'm seeing a whole heaping of reasons why it shouldn't be kept, but very few ones calling for it to be kept without saying "but the lore is sacred!!", or words to that effect, or making some veiled comment towards some kind of conspiracy.
Why are we talking about sexual violence to begin with? There's a great piece of writing advice I've taken to heart regarding this, and that is:
"If you can use something else, do it."
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The closest I've ever read of any sort of sexual encounter in one of the books was the implied Cain/Amberly tryst where his orderly walks in on them at the end of the book, and she's naked, and he's naked, and the orderly just turns around, and starts relaying orders or something silly. There was never anything in any book I've read showing more than hints. Now as far as sexual violence towards women, that is far from rare. There's been several books where it graphically depicts what is happening to a woman, usually involving some daemon or chaos sorcerer of slanesh. I think it was either Shadowsword or Baneblade where the young woman is ripped appart and turned into a living portal for daemons, or the scene with the baby, that whole book was messed up at times.
In the Eisenhorne books the BBEG he's chasing was a rampant sex criminal of some renown, I forget if it goes into any detail. But I know he was trying to work up a type of kharma bomb to open a gateway to Slanesh or something...
AoS had the Firmir, which were literal rape monsters, but nothing like that in 40k, oddly.
Fimir haven't been rape monsters in either Fantasy or AoS since their first iteration.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The closest I've ever read of any sort of sexual encounter in one of the books was the implied Cain/Amberly tryst where his orderly walks in on them at the end of the book, and she's naked, and he's naked, and the orderly just turns around, and starts relaying orders or something silly. There was never anything in any book I've read showing more than hints. Now as far as sexual violence towards women, that is far from rare. There's been several books where it graphically depicts what is happening to a woman, usually involving some daemon or chaos sorcerer of slanesh. I think it was either Shadowsword or Baneblade where the young woman is ripped appart and turned into a living portal for daemons, or the scene with the baby, that whole book was messed up at times.
In the Eisenhorne books the BBEG he's chasing was a rampant sex criminal of some renown, I forget if it goes into any detail. But I know he was trying to work up a type of kharma bomb to open a gateway to Slanesh or something...
AoS had the Firmir, which were literal rape monsters, but nothing like that in 40k, oddly.
In one of the fulgrim novels (surprise surprise) there is a woman who is depicted doing acts of sexual of violence to some bloke and putting him in barrel in her room to use his fluids as paint..
40k Is for obvious reasons trying to stay away from explicit dark/sexy stuff.
They are aiming to market stuff to kids with wealthy parents to hook them in early and having some sick stuff in their books would for good reason not be good for kids..
Those kids then grow up and continue to consume but we are all drawn in early aren't we ?
Its sad how many people have built their forts on their hills refusing to come out...
There is only one question that really needs to be asked: Why do people want female space marines rather than another female centric army?
I would hypothesise its because its lazy activism of subversion something that exists, rather then creating something new and original.
RaptorusRex wrote: Why are we talking about sexual violence to begin with? There's a great piece of writing advice I've taken to heart regarding this, and that is:
"If you can use something else, do it."
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The closest I've ever read of any sort of sexual encounter in one of the books was the implied Cain/Amberly tryst where his orderly walks in on them at the end of the book, and she's naked, and he's naked, and the orderly just turns around, and starts relaying orders or something silly. There was never anything in any book I've read showing more than hints. Now as far as sexual violence towards women, that is far from rare. There's been several books where it graphically depicts what is happening to a woman, usually involving some daemon or chaos sorcerer of slanesh. I think it was either Shadowsword or Baneblade where the young woman is ripped appart and turned into a living portal for daemons, or the scene with the baby, that whole book was messed up at times.
In the Eisenhorne books the BBEG he's chasing was a rampant sex criminal of some renown, I forget if it goes into any detail. But I know he was trying to work up a type of kharma bomb to open a gateway to Slanesh or something...
AoS had the Firmir, which were literal rape monsters, but nothing like that in 40k, oddly.
Fimir haven't been rape monsters in either Fantasy or AoS since their first iteration.
A post from very early in the thread was brought into recent discussion.
It's very a "X, therefore, Y" argument, usually from people with poor knowledge of setting/stories, and always gets people into trouble.
There is only one question that really needs to be asked: Why do people want female space marines rather than another female centric army?
Two reasons:
The lore one is that it doesn't make much sense. It doesn't fit the IoM which is never depicted as sexist, so it comes as something enforced by the corporate higher ups without care of the implications on the setting. This was further reinforced by the corporate mandate of No Female Custodes.
The second one is that Space Marines overwhelmingly dominate the narrative of the setting. If Space Marines were only one faction, this wouldn't be an issue. But they are the poster factions that are basically half the game, and 9 out of 10 novels are about Space Marines. If one seeks equal representation between genders, this is an insurmountable obstacle.
In one of the fulgrim novels (surprise surprise) there is a woman who is depicted doing acts of sexual of violence to some bloke and putting him in barrel in her room to use his fluids as paint..
40k Is for obvious reasons trying to stay away from explicit dark/sexy stuff.
They are aiming to market stuff to kids with wealthy parents to hook them in early and having some sick stuff in their books would for good reason not be good for kids..
Those kids then grow up and continue to consume but we are all drawn in early aren't we ?
Its sad how many people have built their forts on their hills refusing to come out...
There is only one question that really needs to be asked: Why do people want female space marines rather than another female centric army?
I would hypothesise its because its lazy activism of subversion something that exists, rather then creating something new and original.
Fulgrim is a very rare example of a book that fully goes into some NSFW territory. When it comes to in-store purchases, the staff always have a rough idea of what should and should not be sold to kids.
As for why female SM, I've got a couple of reasons:
1 - SM are the poster faction of Warhammer 40k, denying this is just dumb. If your main product has representation for people other than just white guys in its marketing then those people might feel more comfortable getting into the hobby. More people with different views/ideas/feelings is good for the hobby. There is a loud minority out there that see non-white male hobbyists and decide they are *things I am not going to say here because, oh boy are they bad*. Those people are what the public usually imagines when they think of a "Warhammer player" and I would love for that to not be the case.
2 - Anything that isn't SM is never going to be as popular as SM, that is just a straight-up fact. Even on the surface where would you find space for a female-centric faction? SoB are Imperial, Orks/Nids/Crons are basically genderless in one way or another, T'au/all types of Aeldari are noted for their mixed forces. It's been a really long time since there was a fully-fledged brand new faction in 40k, the T'au in 2001 by my reckoning and even to this day people still say they shouldn't exist in 40k.
3 - Nobody is demanding all SM players play with female SM or redo all of their old models as female. People just want the option.
4 - The lore reason behind no female SM is flimsy at best. The only real reason "in-universe" seems to be the Emperor didn't like wiminz and there have been a few times where characters (Malcador being one of them) have suggested that the Emperor made a mistake in only making the Primarchs and SM male because it basically turned into a testosterone-filled high-school gym changing room.
The same people on here saying Astartes can't be women, as the same people who got butt hurt when a black man played Heimdal in the movies, or any prominent character is race swapped. Because they can't stand to see their group be forced out of the spot light. Female Space marines wouldn't harm Astartes in the LEAST way, it would only strengthen their lore.
We don't have to answer why inclusivity is a good thing, you have the burden to explain why it's a bad thing, and you don't like it.
Stop poisoning that well.
Argive wrote:There is only one question that really needs to be asked: Why do people want female space marines rather than another female centric army?
Because another female centric army wouldn't be Space Marines - the flagship faction of the setting, the one with all the marketability, the one plastered in store fronts and recognised by fans and non-fans alike.
If Space Marines weren't that, then there'd be no major issue, other than confusingly gendered writing for apparently no real purpose, but Space Marines are uniquely well-marketable.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If you actually enjoy the setting, why demand these changes?
Because I enjoy the rest of the setting that doesn't promote a mindless boys-only mentality.
A strawman, if I ever heard one. Keeping Space Marines as the Space Marines we know doesn't promote a "boys only" mentality. You have nearly a dozen other factions; if you're that assmad over wanting fictional plastic and/or resin women on the table, you have others with them already established as integrated parts of the fighting forces. Not having female space marines isn't telling women that they're not welcome - and anyone making that argument is, quite frankly, either a moron or a political ideologue.
Argive wrote:There is only one question that really needs to be asked: Why do people want female space marines rather than another female centric army?
Because another female centric army wouldn't be Space Marines - the flagship faction of the setting, the one with all the marketability, the one plastered in store fronts and recognised by fans and non-fans alike.
If Space Marines weren't that, then there'd be no major issue, other than confusingly gendered writing for apparently no real purpose, but Space Marines are uniquely well-marketable.
So basically you just wanna push wahmen to the forefront just because they're wahmen to make yourself feel better and earn brownie points. Right-o.
Kepora wrote: Not having female space marines isn't telling women that they're not welcome - and anyone making that argument is, quite frankly, either a moron or a political ideologue.
Or a woman who feels excluded by the game's major faction not including women.
If you personally don't feel that it sends that message, that's fine for you... but it's not really up to you to decide whether or not other people feel welcome, is it?
So basically you just wanna push wahmen to the forefront just because they're wahmen to make yourself feel better and earn brownie points. Right-o.
No, he wants to include women in the game's most visible faction because that sends a message that the game is inclusive. Wanting the game to be inclusive isn't to make us feel better, it's to make the people who currently feel excluded feel better.
A strawman, if I ever heard one. Keeping Space Marines as the Space Marines we know doesn't promote a "boys only" mentality.
GW doesn't even keep Space Marines as the Space Marines we know. They're constantly adding or changing the lore around them, including a little thing you might have heard of called Primaris.
Kepora wrote: You have nearly a dozen other factions; if you're that assmad over wanting fictional plastic and/or resin women on the table, you have others with them already established as integrated parts of the fighting forces.
A dozen other factions that are in no way supported as well as Space Marines. Hell, certain Space Marine sub-factions are better supported than entire other armies.
Let's quickly go through all the factions that do allow women to fight (we'll skip SoB for obvious reasons--though the SoB can include more men in their lineup than all the other imperial lines can field women put together):
1) Imperial Guard. Lore states that there are both mixed gender and mono gender regiments. Is that reflected in the model line? No. Is the model line appealing? Certainly not the infantry, which is old,ugly as feth, and is in desperate need of a refresh.
2) Imperial Knights. Well, they're giant robots. I think it's telling that if you want to play an imperial army that includes a choice of genders, you're playing giant robots.
3) Genestealer Cults. (Some of?) The Jackals and two HQ's are women. None of the troops as far as I can tell--all the unmasked basic troops have masculine features. Presumably this extends to decidedly inhuman acolytes but that's a moot point anyway. Also treated as the red-headed step child of the game. GSCs are to the Xenos factions what the Xenos factions are to Space Marines in GW's mind.
4) Eldar. Tends towards androgyny in a lot of their units leaving them to determine gender by swapping around heads. Many still tend towards the masculine form even. Because of their cultural hang-ups around Aspect Warriors, the only expressly feminine models are some guardians and the Howling Banshees. They have less women in the HQ section than GSC's with Jain Zar. Neither Howling Banshees nor Jain Zar are very appealing to take on the tabletop. The Eldar line-up is very much feeling its age too.
4) Dark Eldar. (One of) The most evil faction is the game is also the most inclusive. They have women named HQ's, they have women generic HQ's, wyches include both genders, kabalites include both genders, scourges, reavers, hellions, oh my. Only their monsters and monstrous covens lack the same representation. And incubi, but that's leftover from the Eldar cultural baggage mentioned above. And because they have so many options, it's extremely easy to kitbash the army any way you want, to be either all boys or all girls or leave 'em mixed. Maybe you want a female archon or a male succubus--go ahead, nothing stopping you at either the lore or model selection.
5) Tau. Technically also fairly diverse in that they have a female HQ and that their sprues have female heads. Only difference between male and female tau being the forehead slit, this is about as satisfying as pretending all the helmeted heads in a cadian troop box just so happens to be ladies. Not terrible, but it's fine. Tau as an army is very divisive between their plot armor, in-universe naivete, model style, and fluctuation between completely OP and absolute garbage rules.
And that's it. I mean, I guess I did leave out harlequins and sisters of silence, but it'll be a cold day in hell before I consider those armies of their own instead of subfactions.
When you add on the fact that necrons and orks are essentially mono-gendered, telling people to be quiet and play another army seems a little disingenuous, doesn't it? Because their choices are for the most part awful.
Kepora wrote: Not having female space marines isn't telling women that they're not welcome - and anyone making that argument is, quite frankly, either a moron or a political ideologue.
It's a symptom of a wider issue. WH40k is not very welcoming to women at all, and I'm not just talking about the player stereotype. If you want to play an army that includes women, you have five choices. If you want to play an army that is mostly women, you have two, one of which that was so unsupported that it didn't see new models for over 20 years (and before their re-release, Dark Eldar weren't exactly the darlings of GW's deformed, glaucoma eye either). Compare that to Space Marines, the flagship of the game, the army so important that not only does it get the first codex of every edition, that it gets at least two codexes an edition now, that it has subfactions better supported than some xeno armies, but it get its entire model line re-released and expanded over two years while pretty much everything else took a back seat.
Having a full half of the game outright exclude women models and another chunk of the armies also ditching women as an option or having truly pathetic options may not be directly unwelcoming women players, but it's certainly neglecting them at best. It's also probably one of the reasons 40k players have some of the stereotypes they do, unfortunately.
And it's truly pathetic when you compare it to AoS. Every faction has women in there. Even the ghosts 'n ghouls. But of course, AoS doesn't have the albatross around its neck that 40k does called Space Marines.
Every study shows that the majority of people who are getting into a hobby--video games, books, miniatures, whatever--will respond better if their focus is something they can project themselves on and gender is a big part of that. It's why gakky dystopian YA novels have generic girl protagonists with the personality of a carrot. It's why many video games have Generic White Guy Action Protagonist. And it's probably why we're seeing a subtle shift in marketing for 40k that is starting to include women, both with their refusal to half-ass the SoB release, to including women in their promotional material, to even releasing more Black Library novels with women as the main characters.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because I enjoy the rest of the setting that doesn't promote a mindless boys-only mentality.
A strawman, if I ever heard one. Keeping Space Marines as the Space Marines we know doesn't promote a "boys only" mentality.
The Space Marines "we know"? Was this pre- or post-Primaris? Was this back when Space Marines were more like military police than the full fighting force they are now? Was this when women Space Marines were a thing?
The idea of "Space Marines we know" is a nebulous concept, and has never been set in stone. Primaris saw to that.
You have nearly a dozen other factions
Tell me which one even comes close to the marketability of Space Marines.
Not having female space marines isn't telling women that they're not welcome
"Hey guys, look at our flagship faction! Aren't they so cool, and iconic, and plastered all over our brand image, and- WAIT!! Is that a WOMAN looking like one? Uh, no, sorry, no girls allowed for our flagship faction! You'll just have to settle for something else."
That, coupled with the fan backlash whenever someone dares to make a woman Space Marine, would very much foster an environment where people may feel that they aren't welcome.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because another female centric army wouldn't be Space Marines - the flagship faction of the setting, the one with all the marketability, the one plastered in store fronts and recognised by fans and non-fans alike.
If Space Marines weren't that, then there'd be no major issue, other than confusingly gendered writing for apparently no real purpose, but Space Marines are uniquely well-marketable.
So basically you just wanna push wahmen to the forefront just because they're wahmen to make yourself feel better and earn brownie points. Right-o.
I assume reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
Women should be represented in the forefront faction because there's no good reason they shouldn't be represented equally. And equally means being alongside men at the forefront.
Having the same amount of male and female factions means squat when the male factions are given more screentime and attention. That's not equality. Are you opposed to equality? If so, why?
insaniak wrote:
Kepora wrote: Not having female space marines isn't telling women that they're not welcome - and anyone making that argument is, quite frankly, either a moron or a political ideologue.
Or a woman who feels excluded by the game's major faction not including women.
If you personally don't feel that it sends that message, that's fine for you... but it's not really up to you to decide whether or not other people feel welcome, is it?
Aye - it's interesting that these people are so sure that they know exactly what will and won't make people feel welcome, and that those things just happen to be keeping things exactly as they are.
Angry male privilege syndrome in full effect here.
Allowing women to be part of the best faction in the game isn't taking anything away from all male faction. allowing women to be a greater part of the new lore isn't ruining previous lore. Allowing women to feel safe, represented, and most importantly, accepted in your 99% rich white male hobby, won't hurt your hobby at all.
But please, lay off trying to use a Gen Z pronoun in some weird attempt to make fun of a gender identity? The spelling you were going for is womyn.
I think people should stop trying to change everything into a homogenised mass.
Space Marines should not be changed just because people who don't like Space Marines hope they'd like them more by changing them.
"Representation" is frankly a joke, the majority of people can empathise with other people just fine. I never couldn't get into a Kung Fu movie because I'm not Asian, or listen to a girl band because I'm not a woman. It's narcissistic to need to see yourself reflected in everything.
Animus wrote: I think people should stop trying to change everything into a homogenised mass.
Space Marines should not be changed just because people who don't like Space Marines hope they'd like them more by changing them.
"Representation" is frankly a joke, the majority of people can empathise with other people just fine. I never couldn't get into a Kung Fu movie because I'm not Asian, or listen to a girl band because I'm not a woman. It's narcissistic to need to see yourself reflected in everything.
In my country we are literally trying to make police view people of dark skin color as humans, and teach others not to hit old Asian women in the heads with hammers. We just had a leader who literally said most people immigrating to this country are bad people. We have people in this country that are afraid of vaccines because a former playboy model said they cause autism. We do not, nor have we ever, been "just fine" at sympathizing with others. Rascism and sexism exist, and the sooner you understand that, the sooner you can start helping to stop it.
Animus wrote: I think people should stop trying to change everything into a homogenised mass.
Space Marines should not be changed just because people who don't like Space Marines hope they'd like them more by changing them.
"Representation" is frankly a joke, the majority of people can empathise with other people just fine. I never couldn't get into a Kung Fu movie because I'm not Asian, or listen to a girl band because I'm not a woman. It's narcissistic to need to see yourself reflected in everything.
Congrats on making the worst argument so far in this thread.
Is it narcissistic to want to be treated equally? Is it narcissistic to not be hounded of social media because you dared to be female/black/asian/middle eastern/lgbt+?
This isn't about people not liking SM, it's about making the PRIMARY PRODUCT of the 40k range more welcoming to non-straight, cis, white-male hobbyists. So far the options for female hobbyists getting armies that represent them are:
- Female-only faction who are religious fanatics and only exist in lore to get around a poorly worded law.
- Space Elves who are the definition of NSFW.
- Space Elves with a model range older than many players.
- T'au who are by design homogenous.
- A tiny selection of minis in otherwise male-dominated factions.
Not a single one of these comes close to the market presence of SM.
If people can empathise with others so well, why is racism/sexism/transphobia/homophobia/bigotry so widespread? Any time a non-white male character does literally anything that isn't dying or getting saved by a white male character in any 40k media, the vocal chuds scream about it across the internet.
That is the image put across of Warhammer players and is the main reason people leave the hobby if they aren't straight, cis, white and male.
I feel a better solution to this would be to bring some of the neglected model lines up to date, as these are the lines that actually are always meant to have had women in them. Imperial Guard and Eldar both sorely need updating, and it would be a great opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. Make existing players happier that their factions are getting updated and make things more inclusive as well. I feel GW could also stand to reduce the marketing drive behind marines and distribute it around a bit better so they're not such a dominating presence that them not being inclusive is a problem. The Age of Sigmar equivalent to marines is at the forefront, but they're not nearly as pushed as the marines are.
This is coloured by my bias against marines though. The only reason I would be pissed if a female marine line came out tomorrow would be because it was yet more marines when there are model lines desperately in need of an update.
If it came up in a few years time after everyone else was up to date then I wouldn't mind. It's pretty well established in this thread that the reason there weren't any female marines for pretty dubious reasons and times have changed. Some of the cooler looking Stormcasts are women so I think GW could do a good job with an update like this.
So I'd say I'm against it today but won't be in a while.
Reading this thread has made me very furious. Despite that, I'm not a guy who would put tons of effort into a forum post, so just a few points.
One thing all those 'equality'-thirsting people do is seeing the game as a continuation of all the social problems, powers and processes of real life. That is a distgusting form of pseudo-marxism. No, my (and anyone else's) reasons to (not) play 40k (or whatever) are not (just) the social position I'm in. And those people overlook aesthetic aspects altogether, thinking that games are all about catering to psychological needs and implicit questions of power and oppression.
A game is not about you, it is about itself. Playing a game is not replicating yourself, it is commiting to smth positively different, and finding joy in that. I've found myself multiple times, when playing games with an RP aspect (40k is one of those), opting for a character or faction that is surprisingly different from me in real life, even though the game HAD an option that is more like me. Seeking self-representation in games locks you inside yourself and your problems even more. Aren't games are supposed to be relaxing, entertaining, relieving stress from reality?
I'm not so much against equality as I'm for difference. Arbitrary characteristics of game that make it different have value. Yes, exclusively male SM have value. Not because I'm against women (not at all), but because it constitutes the identity of the game.
I do see how my argument can be dismantled from the point of view of those leftists. But again, let us remind ourselves that not only social problems exist, and we have other things too, like purely personal preference, aesthetics, and self-sufficiency of fiction. The inclusivity discourse is way too centered around social groups and stuff. There are other forces at work too.
Blinkfox wrote: Reading this thread has made me very furious. Despite that, I'm not a guy who would put tons of effort into a forum post, so just a few points.
One thing all those 'equality'-thirsting people do is seeing the game as a continuation of all the social problems, powers and processes of real life. That is a distgusting form of pseudo-marxism. No, my (and anyone else's) reasons to (not) play 40k (or whatever) are not (just) the social position I'm in. And those people overlook aesthetic aspects altogether, thinking that games are all about catering to psychological needs and implicit questions of power and oppression.
A game is not about you, it is about itself. Playing a game is not replicating yourself, it is commiting to smth positively different, and finding joy in that. I've found myself multiple times, when playing games with an RP aspect (40k is one of those), opting for a character or faction that is surprisingly different from me in real life, even though the game HAD an option that is more like me. Seeking self-representation in games locks you inside yourself and your problems even more. Aren't games are supposed to be relaxing, entertaining, relieving stress from reality?
I'm not so much against equality as I'm for difference. Arbitrary characteristics of game that make it different have value. Yes, exclusively male SM have value. Not because I'm against women (not at all), but because it constitutes the identity of the game.
I do see how my argument can be dismantled from the point of view of those leftists. But again, let us remind ourselves that not only social problems exist, and we have other things too, like purely personal preference, aesthetics, and self-sufficiency of fiction. The inclusivity discourse is way too centered around social groups and stuff. There are other forces at work too.
Easy, you have zero argument. Done. What do I win? Also, if you are against equality, you are pro segregation, in point of fact. You say that there should be different rules for different people.
Again, what does anyone have to lose by having female space marines? You haven't lost the lore, it's still there. Just now there is new lore. It's no more of a break than when Cawl invented the Primaris.
Blinkfox wrote: Reading this thread has made me very furious. Despite that, I'm not a guy who would put tons of effort into a forum post, so just a few points.
One thing all those 'equality'-thirsting people do is seeing the game as a continuation of all the social problems, powers and processes of real life. That is a distgusting form of pseudo-marxism. No, my (and anyone else's) reasons to (not) play 40k (or whatever) are not (just) the social position I'm in. And those people overlook aesthetic aspects altogether, thinking that games are all about catering to psychological needs and implicit questions of power and oppression.
A game is not about you, it is about itself. Playing a game is not replicating yourself, it is commiting to smth positively different, and finding joy in that. I've found myself multiple times, when playing games with an RP aspect (40k is one of those), opting for a character or faction that is surprisingly different from me in real life, even though the game HAD an option that is more like me. Seeking self-representation in games locks you inside yourself and your problems even more. Aren't games are supposed to be relaxing, entertaining, relieving stress from reality?
I'm not so much against equality as I'm for difference. Arbitrary characteristics of game that make it different have value. Yes, exclusively male SM have value. Not because I'm against women (not at all), but because it constitutes the identity of the game.
I do see how my argument can be dismantled from the point of view of those leftists. But again, let us remind ourselves that not only social problems exist, and we have other things too, like purely personal preference, aesthetics, and self-sufficiency of fiction. The inclusivity discourse is way too centered around social groups and stuff. There are other forces at work too.
Wanting non-male SM makes me a pseudo-Marxist? Wack. I mean that term is utterly meaningless much like "Woke" and "SJW", so go off I guess.
Of course, 40k, since its first iteration, has had a core idea of placing yourself into the game and very much encouraging "Your Dudes". So guess that whole "the game isn't about you" argument has just been nuked.
And, seriously, if you are "furious" because people want to see more variety in the flagship product of 40k then you might need to go outside more.
Blinkfox wrote: Reading this thread has made me very furious. Despite that, I'm not a guy who would put tons of effort into a forum post, so just a few points.
One thing all those 'equality'-thirsting people do is seeing the game as a continuation of all the social problems, powers and processes of real life. That is a distgusting form of pseudo-marxism. No, my (and anyone else's) reasons to (not) play 40k (or whatever) are not (just) the social position I'm in. And those people overlook aesthetic aspects altogether, thinking that games are all about catering to psychological needs and implicit questions of power and oppression.
A game is not about you, it is about itself. Playing a game is not replicating yourself, it is commiting to smth positively different, and finding joy in that. I've found myself multiple times, when playing games with an RP aspect (40k is one of those), opting for a character or faction that is surprisingly different from me in real life, even though the game HAD an option that is more like me. Seeking self-representation in games locks you inside yourself and your problems even more. Aren't games are supposed to be relaxing, entertaining, relieving stress from reality?
I'm not so much against equality as I'm for difference. Arbitrary characteristics of game that make it different have value. Yes, exclusively male SM have value. Not because I'm against women (not at all), but because it constitutes the identity of the game.
I do see how my argument can be dismantled from the point of view of those leftists. But again, let us remind ourselves that not only social problems exist, and we have other things too, like purely personal preference, aesthetics, and self-sufficiency of fiction. The inclusivity discourse is way too centered around social groups and stuff. There are other forces at work too.
Incredible satire. Very well done. I almost believed that there was a human being out there that thought like what this post depicts. Bravo!
Wanting non-male SM makes me a pseudo-Marxist? Wack. I mean that term is utterly meaningless much like "Woke" and "SJW", so go off I guess.
Of course 40k since it's first iteration has had a core tenent of placing yourself into the game and very much encouraging "Your Dudes". So guess that whole "the game isn't about you" argument has just been nuked.
Wanting non-male SMsolely because of a social problem you profess to exist makes you a pseudo-Marxist. You think that the integrity of the game and its general line of aesthetics and lore can be thrown away for the sake of 'inclusivity'. Whereas I think that all that stuff has intrinsic value (the reasons being the implications of my previous post).
And no, thinking that 'your dudes' thing nukes my argument about games not being about me (or you) lacks nuance. Yes, you may make your own dudes, but you do that within the confines of the universe, or bending those confines in a creative, witty, sensible way. You are still commited to a set of restrictions for the sake of them, not because it represents you and your poor oppressed soul.
You keep saying those words and I really don't think you have any idea what they mean. Here's a hint, they mean nothing .
You can deny that sexism doesn't exist in the 40k hobby but you're doing nothing but damage by doing so.
You think that the integrity of the game and its general line of aesthetics and lore can be thrown away for the sake of 'inclusivity'.
You're right, it can only be thrown away for the sake of sales.
Oh! Inclusivity helps drive sales in 2021. Well, I expect GW'll do this after all.
Also, the rhetoric in this thread about toy soldiers in a fictional universe is getting awful close to the rhetoric and verbiage used by... supremacists and nationalists... IRL. And if adding female space marines makes that kind of thing less likely to happen than I welcome them with even open-er arms than I did before!
Gert wrote: You keep saying those words and I really don't think you have any idea what they mean. Here's a hint, they mean nothing .
You can deny that sexism doesn't exist in the 40k hobby but you're doing nothing but damage by doing so.
Sadly you don't address my specific arguments, so I have no idea how to answer properly.
So, not having female SM is not sexist. It is simply what the universe is. If it does repel some people, why is this a problem? Do their lives depend on feeling welcomed by a fictional universe? Those are not mocking or rhetorical questions.
I do admit that the behavior of some players (but not characters or elements of lore) is not friendly or agreeable towards women and/or other groups. Is this a reason to change the lore? Not a rhetorical question.
Something doesn't have to be life threatening to be sexist. It is sexist? yes, is it a big issue?
It is an issue if you are interested in 40k and want to introduce more people to it. It is an issue if you want to grow your gaming group. And also it is a design issue and arguably one of the reasons AoS has the better attention of GW (designers not constrained by corporate mandate are happy designers, so they are more likely to want to work on the more freer IP).
Then again, the game has so many design issues, balance issues and even marketing issues so it not what I would call a priority issue, but that doesn't mean it is okay. It is an issue.
Blinkfox wrote: Reading this thread has made me very furious. Despite that, I'm not a guy who would put tons of effort into a forum post, so just a few points.
One thing all those 'equality'-thirsting people do is seeing the game as a continuation of all the social problems, powers and processes of real life. That is a distgusting form of pseudo-marxism. No, my (and anyone else's) reasons to (not) play 40k (or whatever) are not (just) the social position I'm in. And those people overlook aesthetic aspects altogether, thinking that games are all about catering to psychological needs and implicit questions of power and oppression.
A game is not about you, it is about itself. Playing a game is not replicating yourself, it is commiting to smth positively different, and finding joy in that. I've found myself multiple times, when playing games with an RP aspect (40k is one of those), opting for a character or faction that is surprisingly different from me in real life, even though the game HAD an option that is more like me. Seeking self-representation in games locks you inside yourself and your problems even more. Aren't games are supposed to be relaxing, entertaining, relieving stress from reality?
I'm not so much against equality as I'm for difference. Arbitrary characteristics of game that make it different have value. Yes, exclusively male SM have value. Not because I'm against women (not at all), but because it constitutes the identity of the game.
I do see how my argument can be dismantled from the point of view of those leftists. But again, let us remind ourselves that not only social problems exist, and we have other things too, like purely personal preference, aesthetics, and self-sufficiency of fiction. The inclusivity discourse is way too centered around social groups and stuff. There are other forces at work too.
Ok, let's address all the arguments, shall we?
1 - Yes, you can and should use hobbies to escape the pains of life. However, if certain people cannot gain entry to a hobby because of arbitrary reasons that can be taken away at any moment at no real cost then that is indeed an issue. Hobbies cater to psychological needs when they give people a chance to be happy.
2 - Pseudo-Marxist and other terms using the word "Marxist" are often invented and used by people with far-right views to scare those with more centrist outlooks to stay away from anything that isn't Conservative or Capitalist i.e. Socialised Healthcare or racial/gender/sex equality.
3 - As I have said, a core idea of 40k is having "Your Dudes" on the table. I can create Chapter Master Gertimus of the Pufferfish Warriors but a female player can't have Chapter Master Athena of the Flaming Blades because there are no female SM because of "genetics". It's the 41st millennium and gene-tailoring is widespread and common in the IoM. The only reason there aren't female SM in the modern day is that in the 80's/90's the female SM models didn't sell.
4 - If there was representation in the game there wouldn't be an issue about representation. Currently, female players have 1 faction where they can properly represent themselves and they only got the limelight for a month or two before SM were back on top.
5 - SM being male does not constitute the identity of 40k. 40k is a dark future where humanity lives in a horrific empire that is fighting everything else in the galaxy that also happens to be horrible, except maybe the T'au. Every human life is equally valued unless you have wealth and power in which case you are valued more or are a soldier in which case you are valued a little bit less. The Imperium doesn't care about race/sex/gender, only that you serve the Emperor. The flagship faction of 40k does not represent this well when its ranks are only made up of 50% of the species population.
6 - If you think that your argument can be dismantled by a group that is generally pro-equality and representation, then maybe it's not a good argument chief.
7 - Inclusivity by nature is centred around social groups you muppet. You can't have inclusivity if there aren't social groups.
8 - As for personal preference, just don't put female SM in your army. Done. Problem solved.
9 - If you are really going for the whole "but that's how it's always been" argument then there is literally nothing I will be able to say to make you change your mind. If you can't adapt and change your ideas to be more accomodating to others then there is no discussion to be had.
1 - Yes, you can and should use hobbies to escape the pains of life. However, if certain people cannot gain entry to a hobby because of arbitrary reasons that can be taken away at any moment at no real cost then that is indeed an issue. Hobbies cater to psychological needs when they give people a chance to be happy.
2 - Pseudo-Marxist and other terms using the word "Marxist" are often invented and used by people with far-right views to scare those with more centrist outlooks to stay away from anything that isn't Conservative or Capitalist i.e. Socialised Healthcare or racial/gender/sex equality.
3 - As I have said, a core idea of 40k is having "Your Dudes" on the table. I can create Chapter Master Gertimus of the Pufferfish Warriors but a female player can't have Chapter Master Athena of the Flaming Blades because there are no female SM because of "genetics". It's the 41st millennium and gene-tailoring is widespread and common in the IoM. The only reason there aren't female SM in the modern day is that in the 80's/90's the female SM models didn't sell.
4 - If there was representation in the game there wouldn't be an issue about representation. Currently, female players have 1 faction where they can properly represent themselves and they only got the limelight for a month or two before SM were back on top.
5 - SM being male does not constitute the identity of 40k. 40k is a dark future where humanity lives in a horrific empire that is fighting everything else in the galaxy that also happens to be horrible, except maybe the T'au. Every human life is equally valued unless you have wealth and power in which case you are valued more or are a soldier in which case you are valued a little bit less. The Imperium doesn't care about race/sex/gender, only that you serve the Emperor. The flagship faction of 40k does not represent this well when its ranks are only made up of 50% of the species population.
6 - If you think that your argument can be dismantled by a group that is generally pro-equality and representation, then maybe it's not a good argument chief.
7 - Inclusivity by nature is centred around social groups you muppet. You can't have inclusivity if there aren't social groups.
8 - As for personal preference, just don't put female SM in your army. Done. Problem solved.
9 - If you are really going for the whole "but that's how it's always been" argument then there is literally nothing I will be able to say to make you change your mind. If you can't adapt and change your ideas to be more accomodating to others then there is no discussion to be had.
I'm not prepared to respond to all of the points, so only some of them. 1) I don't really see an issue. 40k is not the only hobby out there, I'm pretty sure that if you do want to feel represented and catered to you WILL find a hobby. If you think that what matters about a hobby is what good it does to people (and not its arbitrary details), than why strive to make a specific, single, arbitrarily picked hobby inclusive by changing its arbitrary details? 2) My use of the word 'Marxist' is conditioned by my desire to underline the stupidity that I see in only addressing the social side of things. I'm not far-right. 6) I am against dogmatism, so I focus on how, not what. The ways and means proposed by the leftists do not satisfy me. I am not against equality or representation per se, I am against specific strategies of enforcing them. 7) See point 2 8) Will I be justified if I refuse to play with an army with female SM? If not, why? 9) I'm not that stubborn and I CAN see myself accepting the idea of female space marines. But only if I find it sensible.
You think that the integrity of the game and its general line of aesthetics and lore can be thrown away for the sake of 'inclusivity'.
You're right, it can only be thrown away for the sake of sales.
Oh! Inclusivity helps drive sales in 2021. Well, I expect GW'll do this after all.
Nope. Basically, companies in 2021 use inclusivity to drive sales by either provoking a reaction from the right-wing brand of cancel culture (basically, all press is good press, this is why companies are still scrambling to cast the little clique of actresses that all the loud angry nerds love to hate, because if you put one of them in your movie you get a nice big stink over the inclusion of that actress, which is much much preferable to there being no buzz about your film at all) or they use it in the obvious way to widen the thing out to a larger audience than the traditional Young White Dudes target audience.
Seeing as many products (AAA video games, blockbuster movies and high-budget TV) have increased in the cost to produce massively, and Young White Dudes (young people in general really) have dropped off the face of the earth in terms of buying power, all those big mainstream entertainment categories need to aim wide to get the same profits they have become accustomed to.
GW doesn't at least currently seem to have that problem. Their customer pool, while colossal compared to the rest of the TT gaming market, is absolutely minuscule compared to the customer pool that you're aiming for if you're spending 300 million dollars on a blockbuster film. For GW, whose market segment is still pretty much limited to the classic Young White Dudes, a cancel culture temper tantrum from them actually WOULD significantly hurt their sales, unlike with a blockbuster film where that generally speaking helps sales as people who hear about the temper tantrum seem to go and watch movies to see what all the fuss is about.
Note - I don't want people to take this as a politics thing, it really isnt here. Cancel Culture is a politically agnostic phenomenon of social media, and plenty of entertainment properties of late have been increasingly employing the strategy of poking the bear in one direction or another to purposefully create free publicity for their products.
I'm not prepared to respond to all of the points, so only some of them.
1) I don't really see an issue. 40k is not the only hobby out there, I'm pretty sure that if you do want to feel represented and catered to you WILL find a hobby. If you think that what matters about a hobby is what good it does to people (and not its arbitrary details), than why strive to make a specific, single, arbitrarily picked hobby inclusive by changing its arbitrary details?
2) My use of the word 'Marxist' is conditioned by my desire to underline the stupidity that I see in only addressing the social side of things. I'm not far-right.
6) I am against dogmatism, so I focus on how, not what. The ways and means proposed by the leftists do not satisfy me. I am not against equality or representation per se, I am against specific strategies of enforcing them.
7) See point 2
8) Will I be justified if I refuse to play with an army with female SM? If not, why?
9) I'm not that stubborn and I CAN see myself accepting the idea of female space marines. But only if I find it sensible.
Firstly, if you can't defend the points you make, don't make them.
Secondly, let's have another go, shall we?
1 - Your solution to the situation is to tell people to leave and find something else. That's stupid.
2 - Again, utterly meaningless when you conflate "Marxism" with, "I think there should be an option for female SM". As with anyone who uses the term to describe anything but actual Marxist Communism you're just spouting buzzwords that get the fash riled up.
3 - You skipped all of the counter-points based on lore. That tells me you know the lore can and will change whenever GW wants it too and making an argument based on "but the lore" is worthless.
6 - Nobody is "enforcing" equality and representation. If you view people being equal and getting equal representation as enforcement then there is nothing I can say that will change your mind.
7 - Society is the collective experience of people. Hobbies are part of society. You literally cannot have one without the other.
8 - No because that's just being rude. If you believe so much that people should be allowed to do what they want with the hobby then denying a game because there's female SM makes you a hypocrite and rude.
9 - So female SM are only OK if they take another 20 years to be introduced and only if everyone agrees it's OK? With that attitude, you sound like the same people who didn't want to give women the right to vote.
Nope. Basically, companies in 2021 use inclusivity to drive sales by either provoking a reaction from the right-wing brand of cancel culture (basically, all press is good press, this is why companies are still scrambling to cast the little clique of actresses that all the loud angry nerds love to hate, because if you put one of them in your movie you get a nice big stink over the inclusion of that actress, which is much much preferable to there being no buzz about your film at all) or they use it in the obvious way to widen the thing out to a larger audience than the traditional Young White Dudes target audience.
Seeing as many products (AAA video games, blockbuster movies and high-budget TV) have increased in the cost to produce massively, and Young White Dudes (young people in general really) have dropped off the face of the earth in terms of buying power, all those big mainstream entertainment categories need to aim wide to get the same profits they have become accustomed to.
GW doesn't at least currently seem to have that problem. Their customer pool, while colossal compared to the rest of the TT gaming market, is absolutely minuscule compared to the customer pool that you're aiming for if you're spending 300 million dollars on a blockbuster film. For GW, whose market segment is still pretty much limited to the classic Young White Dudes, a cancel culture temper tantrum from them actually WOULD significantly hurt their sales, unlike with a blockbuster film where that generally speaking helps sales as people who hear about the temper tantrum seem to go and watch movies to see what all the fuss is about.
Note - I don't want people to take this as a politics thing, it really isnt here. Cancel Culture is a politically agnostic phenomenon of social media, and plenty of entertainment properties of late have been increasingly employing the strategy of poking the bear in one direction or another to purposefully create free publicity for their products.
AoS is way more inclusive thought, so while GW doesn't want a controversy on their hands, I do believe they are using AoS to increase their customer pool beyond the "Young White Dudes" demographic. After all one of the reasons GW dominates the TT market is because they are the introduction company to the TT market, because they are able to cast their net beyond the TT demographic.
And for the moment, I think AoS is serving that function better than 40k.
Aos Isn't just a different game, it's a different player base entirely. My first game of AoS was worlds better than my first game of 40k. 40k is filled with really angsty teen males, that don't really care about the social interaction piece.
AoS on the other hand is like playing a two player video game with a friend. It just feels, better. Your mileage may vary.
Firstly, if you can't defend the points you make, don't make them.
Secondly, let's have another go, shall we?
1 - Your solution to the situation is to tell people to leave and find something else. That's stupid.
2 - Again, utterly meaningless when you conflate "Marxism" with, "I think there should be an option for female SM". As with anyone who uses the term to describe anything but actual Marxist Communism you're just spouting buzzwords that get the fash riled up.
3 - You skipped all of the counter-points based on lore. That tells me you know the lore can and will change whenever GW wants it too and making an argument based on "but the lore" is worthless.
6 - Nobody is "enforcing" equality and representation. If you view people being equal and getting equal representation as enforcement then there is nothing I can say that will change your mind.
7 - Society is the collective experience of people. Hobbies are part of society. You literally cannot have one without the other.
8 - No because that's just being rude. If you believe so much that people should be allowed to do what they want with the hobby then denying a game because there's female SM makes you a hypocrite and rude.
9 - So female SM are only OK if they take another 20 years to be introduced and only if everyone agrees it's OK? With that attitude, you sound like the same people who didn't want to give women the right to vote.
I can't defend the points now . Also, I want the argument to be progressive and open and allow me to rethink things. It's not about being right or making a strong point, I'm not making a case for myself, but for... discussion?..
3) Now, I never defended what GW did with lore. They are not entitled to it to that extent, and whatever they do can also be good or bad. Mostly it's been bad. It's not up to them to judge what's right. Primaris marines were a disasterous worsening of the lore AND gameplay.
6) Again, you are being dogmatic, it seems. Equality is not good per se (that would be absurd and unfounded). Equality may be good in a certain specific paradigm that would explain its value. You think that irrespective of context, equality is always a good thing, which is dogmatic and quasi-religious.
7) Then again, I object to only seeing the social side of things. You can't explain everything in terms of society.
8) If someone is allowed to field female SM or pink black templars, why can't I have the freedom to refuse the game? No hate, no rudeness, just a case of personal preference (that the other guy is also exercising).
1) Well, I do not find it that stupid, because I have stated in the first place that I see games as requiring me to commit to them, to conform to their confines. If I require the game to morph and adapt to whoever is not accepting it in its own state, that just erodes the game and its unique point. Now I see that this doesn't necessarily apply to the case of female space marines, but I wanted to reiterate nevertheless.
Nope. Basically, companies in 2021 use inclusivity to drive sales by either provoking a reaction from the right-wing brand of cancel culture (basically, all press is good press, this is why companies are still scrambling to cast the little clique of actresses that all the loud angry nerds love to hate, because if you put one of them in your movie you get a nice big stink over the inclusion of that actress, which is much much preferable to there being no buzz about your film at all) or they use it in the obvious way to widen the thing out to a larger audience than the traditional Young White Dudes target audience.
Seeing as many products (AAA video games, blockbuster movies and high-budget TV) have increased in the cost to produce massively, and Young White Dudes (young people in general really) have dropped off the face of the earth in terms of buying power, all those big mainstream entertainment categories need to aim wide to get the same profits they have become accustomed to.
GW doesn't at least currently seem to have that problem. Their customer pool, while colossal compared to the rest of the TT gaming market, is absolutely minuscule compared to the customer pool that you're aiming for if you're spending 300 million dollars on a blockbuster film. For GW, whose market segment is still pretty much limited to the classic Young White Dudes, a cancel culture temper tantrum from them actually WOULD significantly hurt their sales, unlike with a blockbuster film where that generally speaking helps sales as people who hear about the temper tantrum seem to go and watch movies to see what all the fuss is about.
Note - I don't want people to take this as a politics thing, it really isnt here. Cancel Culture is a politically agnostic phenomenon of social media, and plenty of entertainment properties of late have been increasingly employing the strategy of poking the bear in one direction or another to purposefully create free publicity for their products.
AoS is way more inclusive thought, so while GW doesn't want a controversy on their hands, I do believe they are using AoS to increase their customer pool beyond the "Young White Dudes" demographic. After all one of the reasons GW dominates the TT market is because they are the introduction company to the TT market, because they are able to cast their net beyond the TT demographic.
And for the moment, I think AoS is serving that function better than 40k.
Yep, I definitely think 40k is currently their Established Whale Consumers product, and AOS is much more geared to get new people in, which is why theyre putting more inclusivity into AOS. Because the pool of existing consumers that they could piss off, they already have pissed off with the launch of AOS, and to begin with they were less than 1/10th the size of the consumer pool they could piss off for 40k. Theyre much less concerned about Angry Gamer Fee-Fees with their various product lines that rely less on the nostalgia dollars to get sales.
You just need to compare how much easier it is to parse the basic rules and datasheets of AOS, Warcry, Underworlds, or Kill Team vs 40k, 30k, Necromunda to see the split. You can also see that comparatively the new kits for 40k are very often aimed at pleasing existing GW consumers vs the new kits for AOS which tend to include a higher percentage of "Spectacle Models" and a lower percentage of nostalgia-based kits and features that the existing GW consumer market cares more about like customization/intricate rules.
I can't defend the points now . Also, I want the argument to be progressive and open and allow me to rethink things. It's not about being right or making a strong point, I'm not making a case for myself, but for... discussion?..
3) Now, I never defended what GW did with lore. They are not entitled to it to that extent, and whatever they do can also be good or bad. Mostly it's been bad. It's not up to them to judge what's right. Primaris marines were a disasterous worsening of the lore AND gameplay.
6) Again, you are being dogmatic, it seems. Equality is not good per se (that would be absurd and unfounded). Equality may be good in a certain specific paradigm that would explain its value. You think that irrespective of context, equality is always a good thing, which is dogmatic and quasi-religious.
7) Then again, I object to only seeing the social side of things. You can't explain everything in terms of society.
8) If someone is allowed to field female SM or pink black templars, why can't I have the freedom to refuse the game? No hate, no rudeness, just a case of personal preference (that the other guy is also exercising).
1) Well, I do not find it that stupid, because I have stated in the first place that I see games as requiring me to commit to them, to conform to their confines. If I require the game to morph and adapt to whoever is not accepting it in its own state, that just erodes the game and its unique point. Now I see that this doesn't necessarily apply to the case of female space marines, but I wanted to reiterate nevertheless.
- GW owns the IP. You have no say and neither do I beyond what we buy. It is entirely up to them to judge what is and isn't right for their product.
- You are correct equality in all things is dumb but please point to where I said that. There should be no situation where someone's race/gender/sex/sexual orientation/religion precludes them from participating in a hobby. Pretending the 40k community has a problem with people who aren't straight, cis, white, and male does no good, and refusing to even consider a change to the hobby that would make it easier for those people to try the hobby isn't a good look.
- Yes you cannot explain everything in terms of societal impact but if you are making an argument that pertains to a sociological issue then you can't ignore the societal impact both of and on 40k.
- If you are refusing them the game on grounds of "I don't think your army should exist", that's kind of rude my guy.
- I don't know how to explain that you should care about other people.
Animus wrote: I think people should stop trying to change everything into a homogenised mass.
Space Marines should not be changed just because people who don't like Space Marines hope they'd like them more by changing them.
"Representation" is frankly a joke, the majority of people can empathise with other people just fine. I never couldn't get into a Kung Fu movie because I'm not Asian, or listen to a girl band because I'm not a woman. It's narcissistic to need to see yourself reflected in everything.
In my country we are literally trying to make police view people of dark skin color as humans, and teach others not to hit old Asian women in the heads with hammers. We just had a leader who literally said most people immigrating to this country are bad people. We have people in this country that are afraid of vaccines because a former playboy model said they cause autism. We do not, nor have we ever, been "just fine" at sympathizing with others. Rascism and sexism exist, and the sooner you understand that, the sooner you can start helping to stop it.
If only I'd know female space marines would solve all that I'd have advocated for them.
You don't have to beat all fiction into shape to attempt to solve real world issues.
Most people are just fine at empathising with others, those who can't do it or won't do it will not magically be corrected by female space marines.
In even fiction? Yes, absolutely. Equality is equal rights and responsibility under the law. Enjoying all things equally is not a right, nor is being represented in all things. If a Jew born and raised in New York enjoys Seinfeld more than me, then more power to him.
You just need to compare how much easier it is to parse the basic rules and datasheets of AOS, Warcry, Underworlds, or Kill Team vs 40k, 30k, Necromunda to see the split. You can also see that comparatively the new kits for 40k are very often aimed at pleasing existing GW consumers vs the new kits for AOS which tend to include a higher percentage of "Spectacle Models" and a lower percentage of nostalgia-based kits and features that the existing GW consumer market cares more about like customization/intricate rules.
TBF I think Necromunda (once it got going at least) has done quite well with representation and fairly fluid lore. Joining a gang is more about the lifestyle and personality than biological gribbles. If you are an Escher at heart but are male you can still join an Escher gang. They're still mostly women but the option exists and I really like that.
- If you are refusing them the game on grounds of "I don't think your army should exist", that's kind of rude my guy. - I don't know how to explain that you should care about other people.
I am refusing them the game on grounds of "I don't see myself enjoying a game with an army like that". Is this rude? And where does the second thing come from?
So, I can understand the aversion to a big retcon. "Oh yeah, there's ALWAYS been lady Marines!" would feel pretty weird.
But "Cawl, when he did Primaris, also figured out how to double the recruitment pool," seems the kind of thing that's a lot more acceptable. How much you like it will vary (some people enjoy Primaris, some people loathe them) but it'd be another setting change, rather than a retcon.
I, for one, would be all for it-the flagship franchise being more inclusive is a good thing! You probably wouldn't even have to modify the models that much-power armor isn't very tight on the body, in the exterior at least. It'd be mostly changes in unhelmeted heads.
- If you are refusing them the game on grounds of "I don't think your army should exist", that's kind of rude my guy.
- I don't know how to explain that you should care about other people.
I am refusing them the game on grounds of "I don't see myself enjoying a game with an army like that". Is this rude?
And where does the second thing come from?
Because clearly a handful of models in an army having longer hair is so game ruining that the only thing you can do is pack up your toys and go home...
- If you are refusing them the game on grounds of "I don't think your army should exist", that's kind of rude my guy.
- I don't know how to explain that you should care about other people.
I am refusing them the game on grounds of "I don't see myself enjoying a game with an army like that". Is this rude?
And where does the second thing come from?
Because clear
ly a handful of models in an army having longer hair is so game ruining that the only thing you can do is pack up your toys and go home...
Animus wrote:I think people should stop trying to change everything into a homogenised mass.
Having women Astartes makes them a homogenised mass? Is the Space Marine identity really that shallow?
Space Marines should not be changed just because people who don't like Space Marines hope they'd like them more by changing them.
That's not what this is though. People *like* Space Marines, so much so that they want to customise and convert their own, with their own ideas of who they want in that iconic armour. These are people who *want* to like Space Marines, but dislike how there's a strong feeling that they are not welcome in the most iconic faction of the setting.
What kind of message does that send?
"Representation" is frankly a joke
Strange. I don't remember you having the authority to dictate what representation means to people.
the majority of people can empathise with other people just fine.
Are you the majority of people? If so, congratulations - that's why you don't understand what representation means to the minority.
I never couldn't get into a Kung Fu movie because I'm not Asian, or listen to a girl band because I'm not a woman.
...that's not what representation means though.
It's narcissistic to need to see yourself reflected in everything.
Spoken like someone who has never struggled to see your own reflection.
Tarvitz77 wrote:I feel a better solution to this would be to bring some of the neglected model lines up to date, as these are the lines that actually are always meant to have had women in them. Imperial Guard and Eldar both sorely need updating, and it would be a great opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. Make existing players happier that their factions are getting updated and make things more inclusive as well. I feel GW could also stand to reduce the marketing drive behind marines and distribute it around a bit better so they're not such a dominating presence that them not being inclusive is a problem. The Age of Sigmar equivalent to marines is at the forefront, but they're not nearly as pushed as the marines are.
Agreed, but I'd ideally like both. If there were a way to make Space Marines as iconic as, say, Genestealer Cults, sure, them being all male would be tolerable perhaps, but I simply don't see that happening. I'd love older lines (Eldar especially) to be updated, but not at the cost of not making women Astartes canon.
The only reason I would be pissed if a female marine line came out tomorrow would be because it was yet more marines when there are model lines desperately in need of an update.
Nah, that's a totally fair reason - I wouldn't like a whole new release range, but a headswap kit alone and an official statement of "hey, lore's updated" would go wonders. But a whole new release range? No thanks.
Blinkfox wrote:One thing all those 'equality'-thirsting people do is seeing the game as a continuation of all the social problems, powers and processes of real life.
The game is played by people in real life. The game of toy soldiers we play is played by real life people, with real life concerns, and real life people gatekeeping their entry into the community. Sorry, but that's something you can't ignore.
That is a distgusting form of pseudo-marxism.
Oh, you've been reading off of a buzzwords sheet - never mind, I thought this was a serious argument.
Blinkfox wrote:Wanting non-male SMsolely because of a social problem you profess to exist makes you a pseudo-Marxist.
It does exist though. Can't ignore that point.
You are still commited to a set of restrictions for the sake of them
Why? Why do those restrictions exist?
Rihgu wrote:Also, the rhetoric in this thread about toy soldiers in a fictional universe is getting awful close to the rhetoric and verbiage used by... supremacists and nationalists... IRL. And if adding female space marines makes that kind of thing less likely to happen than I welcome them with even open-er arms than I did before!
Aye, that's pretty much what I'm seeing, and my attitudes to it.
Blinkfox wrote:So, not having female SM is not sexist. It is simply what the universe is.
The fictional universe, which has as much integrity as wet paper? The one where things can be rewritten on a whim, because it's a fictional setting designed to sell toys?
The "universe" doesn't exist. Using it's own existence to validate itself isn't an argument.
If it does repel some people, why is this a problem?
Why are you okay repelling people for their gender?
I do admit that the behavior of some players (but not characters or elements of lore) is not friendly or agreeable towards women and/or other groups. Is this a reason to change the lore?
Yes. It removes any sense of legitimacy in their reasoning. Remove the lore, and what do people who dislike woman Astartes have to support their opinions? Not the lore, that's for sure.
Tyran wrote:AoS is way more inclusive thought, so while GW doesn't want a controversy on their hands, I do believe they are using AoS to increase their customer pool beyond the "Young White Dudes" demographic. After all one of the reasons GW dominates the TT market is because they are the introduction company to the TT market, because they are able to cast their net beyond the TT demographic.
And for the moment, I think AoS is serving that function better than 40k.
Very true - AoS is looking increasingly like a more welcoming setting and environment, mostly because that the world they've created *is* a more welcoming setting and environment, despite also being full of all the same grim and dark stuff in 40k.
Animus wrote:Most people are just fine at empathising with others, those who can't do it or won't do it will not magically be corrected by female space marines.
But their arguments will be reduced to what I suspect it's always been - disliking women in their territory. They won't have lore to support their behaviour, won't have "but muh canon" - it will be reduced solely to "I just don't want women in my boys club".
Blinkfox wrote:Wanting non-male SMsolely because of a social problem you profess to exist makes you a pseudo-Marxist.
It does exist though. Can't ignore that point.
Animus wrote:Most people are just fine at empathising with others, those who can't do it or won't do it will not magically be corrected by female space marines.
But their arguments will be reduced to what I suspect it's always been - disliking women in their territory. They won't have lore to support their behaviour, won't have "but muh canon" - it will be reduced solely to "I just don't want women in my boys club".
And frankly, I don't think that's defensible.
I might get immense amounts of hate for that, but if a certain club (not the whole community, a single club) does not want women (or any other social group) among them, it's fine. Anyway, that's just a side note. As for the upper quote, I still think that foregrounding a social problem (let's agree that it exists exactly as you describe it, for the sake of argument), making it a reason for a lore change and considering other values or facts less important is... weird. Are we going to see social problems everywhere and change things in an attempt to allegedly 'make people more happy'? (even if some of them are against it) Also, I don't really like the somewhat utilitarian vibe behind all of this (I mean the entire pro-female SM part of discussion).
(Once again I would like to note that I am not mocking, joking, or being snide or cynical. English is not my first language and I might not possess the best rhetoric talent)
Blinkfox wrote:I might get immense amounts of hate for that, but if a certain club (not the whole community, a single club) does not want women (or any other social group) among them, it's fine.
Why?
If they're actively working against including people, and making an environment toxic to keep people out on the basis of their gender, why is that acceptable behaviour?
Are we going to see social problems everywhere and change things in an attempt to allegedly 'make people more happy'? (even if some of them are against it)
When those "social problems" are allowed to excuse bigotry and toxic behaviours in the real world? Absolutely.
There is no excuse for the behaviour you describe (ie, a club deliberately making an environment toxic to keep women or other groups of people defined by anything other than their beliefs).
Also, I don't really like the somewhat utilitarian vibe behind all of this (I mean the entire pro-female SM part of discussion).
Animus wrote:I think people should stop trying to change everything into a homogenised mass.
Having women Astartes makes them a homogenised mass? Is the Space Marine identity really that shallow?
Space Marines should not be changed just because people who don't like Space Marines hope they'd like them more by changing them.
That's not what this is though. People *like* Space Marines, so much so that they want to customise and convert their own, with their own ideas of who they want in that iconic armour. These are people who *want* to like Space Marines, but dislike how there's a strong feeling that they are not welcome in the most iconic faction of the setting.
What kind of message does that send?
"Representation" is frankly a joke
Strange. I don't remember you having the authority to dictate what representation means to people.
the majority of people can empathise with other people just fine.
Are you the majority of people? If so, congratulations - that's why you don't understand what representation means to the minority.
I never couldn't get into a Kung Fu movie because I'm not Asian, or listen to a girl band because I'm not a woman.
...that's not what representation means though.
It's narcissistic to need to see yourself reflected in everything.
Spoken like someone who has never struggled to see your own reflection.
Animus wrote:Most people are just fine at empathising with others, those who can't do it or won't do it will not magically be corrected by female space marines.
But their arguments will be reduced to what I suspect it's always been - disliking women in their territory. They won't have lore to support their behaviour, won't have "but muh canon" - it will be reduced solely to "I just don't want women in my boys club".
And frankly, I don't think that's defensible.
Yes, stripping part of the Space Marine's identity is homogenising them.
They're clearly not trying very hard to like them if the fact they're men is somehow off-putting.
Even stranger, I don't recall claiming to have any authority to dictate what representation means. I wonder how you pulled that from the aether.
I don't think there exists a minority of humans with no empathy, outside of psychopaths.
That's exactly what representation means. There's no one who looks like me in Seven Samurai, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy it. Honestly if you don't enjoy it merely on the basis that everyone is Japanese I'd think you're a racist.
True, I have been blessed to be born into a time and place where reflective surfaces are abundant.
So really you just want to make arguing on the internet easier for yourself despite the fact you're already convinced anyone who disagrees with you hates women. I must ask, if you've already drawn such a severe conclusion, then why even argue?
Blinkfox wrote:Wanting non-male SMsolely because of a social problem you profess to exist makes you a pseudo-Marxist.
It does exist though. Can't ignore that point.
Animus wrote:Most people are just fine at empathising with others, those who can't do it or won't do it will not magically be corrected by female space marines.
But their arguments will be reduced to what I suspect it's always been - disliking women in their territory. They won't have lore to support their behaviour, won't have "but muh canon" - it will be reduced solely to "I just don't want women in my boys club".
And frankly, I don't think that's defensible.
I might get immense amounts of hate for that, but if a certain club (not the whole community, a single club) does not want women (or any other social group) among them, it's fine. Anyway, that's just a side note.
As for the upper quote, I still think that foregrounding a social problem (let's agree that it exists exactly as you describe it, for the sake of argument), making it a reason for a lore change and considering other values or facts less important is... weird. Are we going to see social problems everywhere and change things in an attempt to allegedly 'make people more happy'? (even if some of them are against it)
Also, I don't really like the somewhat utilitarian vibe behind all of this (I mean the entire pro-female SM part of discussion).
(Once again I would like to note that I am not mocking, joking, or being snide or cynical. English is not my first language and I might not possess the best rhetoric talent)
That kind of thing is really not okay, in any way shape or form. The hobby (and 40k) is for anyone who wishes to partake of it and we are strongly against any attempts to disbar people due to colour, gender, creed, sexuality or any other reason bar them espousing hate.
The thing you were just told not to do, you just did.
A private club can do what it wants but this thread is about GW introducing Female Marines and as such your post is little more than misogyny. Don't post like that on this forum if you wish to remain here - ingtær.
Animus wrote:Yes, stripping part of the Space Marine's identity is homogenising them.
In what way? Are they defined solely by their masculine heads? Is there no other part of their identity to the point that knowing that its not a masculine face under that helmet would ruin them?
They're clearly not trying very hard to like them if the fact they're men is somehow off-putting.
It's not the fact that they're men. It's the fact they're *only* men, and that you can't have anything other than men in the Flagship Faction.
No-one's trying to get rid of men. But what's so bad about women being part of the Flagship Faction?
Even stranger, I don't recall claiming to have any authority to dictate what representation means. I wonder how you pulled that from the aether.
Allow me to quote your comment:
"Representation" is frankly a joke
That very much sounds like you're saying that representation isn't important. On what authority do you make that claim?
I don't think there exists a minority of humans with no empathy, outside of psychopaths.
Empathy doesn't equate to representation. You clearly do not understand what representation means, but that's unsurprising, considering your self-confessed position as part of a social majority. However, I would have assumed that you may be empathetic yourself, towards people who do not feel represented as often as you are, and perhaps understand that you don't get to dictate if representation is, or is not, a joke.
That's exactly what representation means. There's no one who looks like me in Seven Samurai, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy it.
And that's exactly why you don't understand what representation means. Thank you for illustrating my point.
So really you just want to make arguing on the internet easier for yourself despite the fact you're already convinced anyone who disagrees with you hates women. I must ask, if you've already drawn such a severe conclusion, then why even argue?
Considering the red text posted just above me, I think perhaps I may have been exactly on the ball.
There's no argument here - just bad faith comments being trotted out, under the guise of "lore". I want to see comments defending *why* the lore should be held sacred, and if that's worth alienating an audience that feel excluded (rightfully so) from the Flagship Faction. So far, I'm seeing comments from people declaring that the lore is sacred because "it's the lore", or that we shouldn't follow the whims of people who feel excluded, either because they allegedly don't exist, or because "they don't deserve to be represented".
I don't think any of the arguments are exactly convincing me that they're coming from a thoughtful or considerate place.
I see we are nearing the end of the threads life. So I will throw out some thoughts before this gets locked.
To reiterate - Why do you need the flagship product (SM) to include women rather then create a new product (new faction) that includes women which will become a flagship product by the merit of it being awesome?
I think SOB can quite easily become the new flagship model range (they kind of have already?) And for all intents and purposes they are female space marines... Power armour human with bolters. Make them T4 for game purposes give them two wounds and be done with it..
Again... It just seems like lazy activism pushing an agenda...
Im sorry but I've read through the responses and the ensuing conversational and all I really see is a bunch of hyperbole, vileness and Ludacris mental gymnastics. It doesn't matter and its fake make believe fiction that has no reflection on the real world nor should it.
Its sad we have to tip toe around issues and any personal views that don't toe the line immediately get reported and labelled as <insetr offense buzzword> because someone's feelings get hurt.
Are people so weak willed they cant abide by words on the internet and get upset about every little thing?
Why do we entertain this attitude? Why allow people to make everything about them, and drag the world around them to their point of pathetic weakness? I really find these views abhorrent.
As explained by many others almost nobody wants any more space marine models.. whether they have a male or female genitals.
How can you people not realise its a very sexist/racist view in the first place?
Do you people not think saying that women/ <insert group identity> will only feel included and want to play a game if there is a woman/<instert minority> model is in itself kind of insulting to women and minorities?
Do they need your approval of female space marines before they can play? How dare you say any specific category of human needs help simply because of the category of race/gender. This logic follows to its conclusion is abhorrent.. and that is what we call "the woke" and at its very core is basically dehumanising..
If you want your models certain way - go for it.
But why demand it on behalf of other people? What kind of ego do you have to think you speak on anyone's behalf but your own and categorise people in groups like everyone is the same..
This is absolute lunacy and the community really needs to start standing up for this nonsense.. I know many people are scared to speak up but by god its about time...
I love this community but this is becoming unbearable cringe fest... Just because some people in America think the world needs to be a certain way, does not mean the rest of the world has to conform and shut about it because we might hurt their feelings and allow this lunacy to go on. We are a global community ffs...
Animus wrote:Yes, stripping part of the Space Marine's identity is homogenising them.
In what way? Are they defined solely by their masculine heads? Is there no other part of their identity to the point that knowing that its not a masculine face under that helmet would ruin them?
They're clearly not trying very hard to like them if the fact they're men is somehow off-putting.
It's not the fact that they're men. It's the fact they're *only* men, and that you can't have anything other than men in the Flagship Faction.
No-one's trying to get rid of men. But what's so bad about women being part of the Flagship Faction?
Even stranger, I don't recall claiming to have any authority to dictate what representation means. I wonder how you pulled that from the aether.
Allow me to quote your comment:
"Representation" is frankly a joke
That very much sounds like you're saying that representation isn't important. On what authority do you make that claim?
I don't think there exists a minority of humans with no empathy, outside of psychopaths.
Empathy doesn't equate to representation. You clearly do not understand what representation means, but that's unsurprising, considering your self-confessed position as part of a social majority. However, I would have assumed that you may be empathetic yourself, towards people who do not feel represented as often as you are, and perhaps understand that you don't get to dictate if representation is, or is not, a joke.
That's exactly what representation means. There's no one who looks like me in Seven Samurai, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy it.
And that's exactly why you don't understand what representation means. Thank you for illustrating my point.
So really you just want to make arguing on the internet easier for yourself despite the fact you're already convinced anyone who disagrees with you hates women. I must ask, if you've already drawn such a severe conclusion, then why even argue?
Considering the red text posted just above me, I think perhaps I may have been exactly on the ball.
There's no argument here - just bad faith comments being trotted out, under the guise of "lore". I want to see comments defending *why* the lore should be held sacred, and if that's worth alienating an audience that feel excluded (rightfully so) from the Flagship Faction. So far, I'm seeing comments from people declaring that the lore is sacred because "it's the lore", or that we shouldn't follow the whims of people who feel excluded, either because they allegedly don't exist, or because "they don't deserve to be represented".
I don't think any of the arguments are exactly convincing me that they're coming from a thoughtful or considerate place.
They are very masculine in concept and presentation. Taking that away is homogenisation to the current trend.
So it's not the fact they're men it's that they're men. Thanks, but women can still empathise with men.
Again, where did I claim authority? If I don't claim to be speaking on behalf of an authority then I'm not. When I say "Representation is a joke" the asterisk you should be adding in your head is *he's speaking on behalf of himself* not *he believes he is a god and passing down infallible judgements with the mandate of heaven*
I know what representation is, which is why I think it's a joke. I know it to be a farce because I know people are perfectly capable of enjoying things that they or people like them aren't in. That's because of empathy. The punchline is the handwringers so obsessed with empty moralising that they themselves find no enjoyment in anything.
You might be on something, but it's not the ball. As far as I saw he was saying men's clubs were okay, which I really can't see being a big problem outside of schmoozey corporate types.
Sticking with the fluff isn't a bad faith argument, many people enjoy the fluff and don't want to see it changed so that someone else might just theoretically enjoy it more. Almost any change to the fluff is met with resistance, ideologically motivated ones understandably more so.
Blinkfox wrote:Wanting non-male SMsolely because of a social problem you profess to exist makes you a pseudo-Marxist.
It does exist though. Can't ignore that point.
Animus wrote:Most people are just fine at empathising with others, those who can't do it or won't do it will not magically be corrected by female space marines.
But their arguments will be reduced to what I suspect it's always been - disliking women in their territory. They won't have lore to support their behaviour, won't have "but muh canon" - it will be reduced solely to "I just don't want women in my boys club".
And frankly, I don't think that's defensible.
I might get immense amounts of hate for that, but if a certain club (not the whole community, a single club) does not want women (or any other social group) among them, it's fine. Anyway, that's just a side note. As for the upper quote, I still think that foregrounding a social problem (let's agree that it exists exactly as you describe it, for the sake of argument), making it a reason for a lore change and considering other values or facts less important is... weird. Are we going to see social problems everywhere and change things in an attempt to allegedly 'make people more happy'? (even if some of them are against it) Also, I don't really like the somewhat utilitarian vibe behind all of this (I mean the entire pro-female SM part of discussion).
(Once again I would like to note that I am not mocking, joking, or being snide or cynical. English is not my first language and I might not possess the best rhetoric talent)
That kind of thing is really not okay, in any way shape or form. The hobby (and 40k) is for anyone who wishes to partake of it and we are strongly against any attempts to disbar people due to colour, gender, creed, sexuality or any other reason bar them espousing hate.
In the same vein would a woman's only wargaming club be ok? Generally curious to know what people think.
We had a woman's only swimming from 8-9pm on Wednesdays at my old pool for example.
Argive wrote:To reiterate - Why do you need the flagship product (SM) to include women rather then create a new product (new faction) that includes women which will become a flagship product by the merit of it being awesome?
Because why create a new flagship when you have a perfectly good one that has no real reason to be mono-gender?
Also, good luck creating an all-female flagship faction that will be able to rival the simple cultural inertia that the Astartes have. And at that point, you'd have had an easier job just making women Astartes canon.
I think SOB can quite easily become the new flagship model range (they kind of have already?)
They really haven't - nothing in 40k, or even all of GW, comes close to the sheer marketability of Space Marines, and you'd be a fool to say otherwise. I'm sure you're not a fool.
And for all intents and purposes they are female space marines... Power armour human with bolters. Make them T4 for game purposes give them two wounds and be done with it..
Space Marines are more than power armour and bolters. By that same virtue, Sisters are the same as Custodes.
Hell, in terms of game similarity, Sisters are closer to Admech, not Space Marines. They occupy very different aesthetics, gamemplay, and background.
Again... It just seems like lazy activism pushing an agenda...
And what agenda would that be? And why would that agenda be a problem?
Im sorry but I've read through the responses and the ensuing conversational and all I really see is a bunch of hyperbole, vileness and Ludacris mental gymnastics. It doesn't matter and its fake make believe fiction that has no reflection on the real world nor should it.
Cool, so it's fake fiction - so it should come second to *real world concerns and issues*, yes?
As you said yourself - it's fake make believe fiction. Why should fake make believe fiction dictate what head I can and can't put on my little war dollies?
Its sad we have to tip toe around issues and any personal views that don't toe the line immediately get reported and labelled as <insetr offense buzzword> because someone's feelings get hurt.
What issues are there to tiptoe around? That women want representation? Why would that be an problem for you?
Are people so weak willed they cant abide by words on the internet and get upset about every little thing?
The only people getting upset are the ones clinging to "fake make believe fiction".
Why do we entertain this attitude? Why allow people to make everything about them, and drag the world around them to their point of pathetic weakness? I really find these views abhorrent.
Quite - imagine using "fake make believe fiction" to exclude women from the flagship faction.
As explained by many others almost nobody wants any more space marine models.. whether they have a male or female genitals.
No-one's asking for models. They're asking to change the lore. That only costs ink (or even less, if GW choose to make their statement online).
How can you people not realise its a very sexist/racist view in the first place?
Please, enlighten us, arbiter of sexism. And I don't remember when race was brought into this. Funny, that.
Do you people not think saying that women/ <insert group identity> will only feel included and want to play a game if there is a woman/<instert minority> model is in itself kind of insulting to women and minorities?
If women and minority groups are asking (which they are), then no, it's not insulting at all.
But obviously, you choose to plug your ears when you hear about that, which I can't help.
Do they need your approval of female space marines before they can play? How dare you say any specific category of human needs help simply because of the category of race/gender. This logic follows to its conclusion is abhorrent.. and that is what we call "the woke" and at its very core is basically dehumanising..
Mate, people of all groups are asking for this. I don't know why you're trying to act like it's only men calling for this. Almost like you just assume that it's men you're talking to online.
If you want your models certain way - go for it.
But why demand it on behalf of other people?
Or, how about putting this the other way - why do you care if someone has women Space Marines, or if GW says that women can be Space Marines? No-one's demanding that you change your little war dollies, because we know how sad that would make you. But why do you care when other people do?
What kind of ego do you have to think you speak on anyone's behalf but your own and categorise people in groups like everyone is the same..
Because I'm not speaking on my behalf. The fact that you're utterly ignorant of women actually calling for this is exactly the kind of exclusionary and dismissive behaviour we're talking about.
This is absolute lunacy and the community really needs to start standing up for this nonsense.. I know many people are scared to speak up but by god its about time...
Christ, you enjoying keeping that gate nailed shut? We're asking for women to be present in the flagship line of a toy soldiers game. It's not a big deal. Why on earth do you feel so threatened by that?
I love this community but this is becoming unbearable cringe fest... Just because some people in America think the world needs to be a certain way, does not mean the rest of the world has to conform and shut about it because we might hurt their feelings and allow this lunacy to go on. We are a global community ffs...
Yeah, it's a global community - and women are in that community.
Maybe listen to them more, instead of dismissing them.
Sweet jesus, you really did go off the rails.
Animus wrote:They are very masculine in concept and presentation. Taking that away is homogenisation to the current trend.
"Very" masculine? I'm not seeing rippling pectorals, save for the stylised BA armour. The codpiece is fairly understated. In fact, minus the head, and you could have anyone in that armour. Almost like that's why they're kinda popular as a blank slate...
So, no, it's not homogenisation - Space Marines are Space Marines regardless of their gender, because they're so much more than that.
So it's not the fact they're men it's that they're men. Thanks, but women can still empathise with men.
Women can empathise with men, but representation isn't about empathising. I'm not really sure where you dreamt that idea up.
Again - answer the question - what's wrong with women being part of the mainline flagship faction? Without using the word "lore" or "established", please.
Again, where did I claim authority?
You said that representation was a joke. That was a claim to authority or fact, made implicitly. Don't try and walk that back.
I know what representation is
*citation needed*, because all your comments indicate you have no clue at all, considering you're tying it to empathy, which misses the point completely.
I know it to be a farce because I know people are perfectly capable of enjoying things that they or people like them aren't in. That's because of empathy.
Point proven - empathy has nothing to do with representation. This is something you'd be aware of if you knew what representation was.
You might be on something, but it's not the ball. As far as I saw he was saying men's clubs were okay, which I really can't see being a big problem outside of schmoozey corporate types.
It was explicitly said that they were okay making environments toxic towards women. In what world is that something to be applauded?
I'm not talking "this club just happens to be all men", this is literally "we're driving women away". That's messed up.
Sticking with the fluff isn't a bad faith argument
The question is simple: do you value made up words over the enjoyment and inclusion of other human beings?
don't want to see it changed so that someone else might just theoretically enjoy it more.
There's no theory about it. I'd enjoy it a hell of a lot more.
Almost any change to the fluff is met with resistance, ideologically motivated ones understandably more so.
And is that supposed to be an excuse?
Argive wrote:In the same vein would a woman's only wargaming club be ok? Generally curious to know what people think.
We had a woman's only swimming from 8-9pm on Wednesdays at my old pool for example.
Women are historically more excluded and cast out than men are, and women's only spaces tend to exist to avoid male "interference" - which I'm sure you don't need me to elaborate on. Men's only spaces (and by that, I refer to communally enforced ones, like the swimming pool) don't exist because there is very little threat from women. Again, this is not a blanket statement, but simply a statistical fact.
Blinkfox wrote:Wanting non-male SMsolely because of a social problem you profess to exist makes you a pseudo-Marxist.
It does exist though. Can't ignore that point.
Animus wrote:Most people are just fine at empathising with others, those who can't do it or won't do it will not magically be corrected by female space marines.
But their arguments will be reduced to what I suspect it's always been - disliking women in their territory. They won't have lore to support their behaviour, won't have "but muh canon" - it will be reduced solely to "I just don't want women in my boys club".
And frankly, I don't think that's defensible.
I might get immense amounts of hate for that, but if a certain club (not the whole community, a single club) does not want women (or any other social group) among them, it's fine. Anyway, that's just a side note. As for the upper quote, I still think that foregrounding a social problem (let's agree that it exists exactly as you describe it, for the sake of argument), making it a reason for a lore change and considering other values or facts less important is... weird. Are we going to see social problems everywhere and change things in an attempt to allegedly 'make people more happy'? (even if some of them are against it) Also, I don't really like the somewhat utilitarian vibe behind all of this (I mean the entire pro-female SM part of discussion).
(Once again I would like to note that I am not mocking, joking, or being snide or cynical. English is not my first language and I might not possess the best rhetoric talent)
That kind of thing is really not okay, in any way shape or form. The hobby (and 40k) is for anyone who wishes to partake of it and we are strongly against any attempts to disbar people due to colour, gender, creed, sexuality or any other reason bar them espousing hate.
In the same vein would a woman's only wargaming club be ok? Generally curious to know what people think.
We had a woman's only swimming from 8-9pm on Wednesdays at my old pool for example.
I notice that it's weird that the same people who are super into diversity seem also to be pro-segregation for a lot of the stuff I see happening in America atm. It's the same idea where they want equality for women in STEM fields but none of the deadly and dangerous careers for men like coal mining or other ones where the skew towards men only is like in the 90% range.
Also, what the hell. I thought this dumpster fire of a thread had finally petered out before more people came back to add some gasoline before it probably gets locked. Feels like borderline twitter between all the buzzwords being thrown around between calling people sexists/Marxists.
I think some of the people here are forgetting this is a game of toy soldiers, if you have to resolve to using ad hominems to prove your point, I think that's very indicative of you showing your insecurity when it comes to escapism if you have this compulsion to have diversity quotas met in things like such a niche hobby. Pushing for stuff like this is slacktivism at its finest.
It's explicit that some people in this thread have made it clear that they only care about representation of females in SM because they're the most popular. Not because it would add any actual aesthetic or writing value or be consistent with the established canon (and yes, one-off mentions from before the lore was coalesced into a distinct entity doesn't count towards that, just like how space marines were originally normal people in 1st edition doesn't count as canon). That in itself shows they don't respect the integrity of the lore because this is the exact same tactic used for pushing race-swaps in established superheroes. People pushing a black Batman or Superman are desperate to have a cheap way of associating their racial group with the same attention/recognition as heroes that have decades of writing/art for who they are. Ironically, they abandon existing heroes like Steel, Black Lightning, Static, etc or making new, more racially diverse heroes over race-swapping because they're lazy and don't want to put the effort and time to help develop characters that can both engaging and racially diverse. And before you say that there are alternate versions of Batman/Superman, I'm not against elseworlds versions, but rather the explicit attempt to replace the mainstream version with a race-swap because it's the most popular hero so that race gets the screentime, which IMO, is a disservice for both the character and the actual race you're attempting to depict. What do people first think of when you hear Superman? Clark Kent. Likewise with Bruce Wayne for Batman. There's a reason why Miles Morales is usually referred to Miles Morales and not by Spider Man, because when you think of Spider Man, most people think Peter Parker. People know who these characters are for a reason, and trying to change that core aspect for the sake of diversity is effectively demonstrating a lack of respect for the core material.
If you are trying to push social activism or agenda out of some bizarre desire to be a moral busybody to police what people should want, I'm sorry to say that you can probably do a lot better than starting with a niche hobby whose whole background was a satirical take on one of the worst human empires in space.
ArcaneHorror wrote: I wouldn't be against it as long as the story of them being written in is done well.
Which is precisely why I'm against GW doing it officially because given their track record with Primaris, it'd be a hamfisted and badly done on top of it being unnecessary.
Argive wrote:To reiterate - Why do you need the flagship product (SM) to include women rather then create a new product (new faction) that includes women which will become a flagship product by the merit of it being awesome?
Because why create a new flagship when you have a perfectly good one that has no real reason to be mono-gender?
Also, good luck creating an all-female flagship faction that will be able to rival the simple cultural inertia that the Astartes have. And at that point, you'd have had an easier job just making women Astartes canon.
I think SOB can quite easily become the new flagship model range (they kind of have already?)
They really haven't - nothing in 40k, or even all of GW, comes close to the sheer marketability of Space Marines, and you'd be a fool to say otherwise. I'm sure you're not a fool.
And for all intents and purposes they are female space marines... Power armour human with bolters. Make them T4 for game purposes give them two wounds and be done with it..
Space Marines are more than power armour and bolters. By that same virtue, Sisters are the same as Custodes.
Hell, in terms of game similarity, Sisters are closer to Admech, not Space Marines. They occupy very different aesthetics, gamemplay, and background.
Again... It just seems like lazy activism pushing an agenda...
And what agenda would that be? And why would that agenda be a problem?
Im sorry but I've read through the responses and the ensuing conversational and all I really see is a bunch of hyperbole, vileness and Ludacris mental gymnastics. It doesn't matter and its fake make believe fiction that has no reflection on the real world nor should it.
Cool, so it's fake fiction - so it should come second to *real world concerns and issues*, yes?
As you said yourself - it's fake make believe fiction. Why should fake make believe fiction dictate what head I can and can't put on my little war dollies?
Its sad we have to tip toe around issues and any personal views that don't toe the line immediately get reported and labelled as <insetr offense buzzword> because someone's feelings get hurt.
What issues are there to tiptoe around? That women want representation? Why would that be an problem for you?
Are people so weak willed they cant abide by words on the internet and get upset about every little thing?
The only people getting upset are the ones clinging to "fake make believe fiction".
Why do we entertain this attitude? Why allow people to make everything about them, and drag the world around them to their point of pathetic weakness? I really find these views abhorrent.
Quite - imagine using "fake make believe fiction" to exclude women from the flagship faction.
As explained by many others almost nobody wants any more space marine models.. whether they have a male or female genitals.
No-one's asking for models. They're asking to change the lore. That only costs ink (or even less, if GW choose to make their statement online).
How can you people not realise its a very sexist/racist view in the first place?
Please, enlighten us, arbiter of sexism. And I don't remember when race was brought into this. Funny, that.
Do you people not think saying that women/ <insert group identity> will only feel included and want to play a game if there is a woman/<instert minority> model is in itself kind of insulting to women and minorities?
If women and minority groups are asking (which they are), then no, it's not insulting at all.
But obviously, you choose to plug your ears when you hear about that, which I can't help.
Do they need your approval of female space marines before they can play? How dare you say any specific category of human needs help simply because of the category of race/gender. This logic follows to its conclusion is abhorrent.. and that is what we call "the woke" and at its very core is basically dehumanising..
Mate, people of all groups are asking for this. I don't know why you're trying to act like it's only men calling for this. Almost like you just assume that it's men you're talking to online.
If you want your models certain way - go for it.
But why demand it on behalf of other people?
Or, how about putting this the other way - why do you care if someone has women Space Marines, or if GW says that women can be Space Marines? No-one's demanding that you change your little war dollies, because we know how sad that would make you. But why do you care when other people do?
What kind of ego do you have to think you speak on anyone's behalf but your own and categorise people in groups like everyone is the same..
Because I'm not speaking on my behalf. The fact that you're utterly ignorant of women actually calling for this is exactly the kind of exclusionary and dismissive behaviour we're talking about.
This is absolute lunacy and the community really needs to start standing up for this nonsense.. I know many people are scared to speak up but by god its about time...
Christ, you enjoying keeping that gate nailed shut? We're asking for women to be present in the flagship line of a toy soldiers game. It's not a big deal. Why on earth do you feel so threatened by that?
I love this community but this is becoming unbearable cringe fest... Just because some people in America think the world needs to be a certain way, does not mean the rest of the world has to conform and shut about it because we might hurt their feelings and allow this lunacy to go on. We are a global community ffs...
Yeah, it's a global community - and women are in that community.
Maybe listen to them more, instead of dismissing them.
Sweet jesus, you really did go off the rails.
Animus wrote:They are very masculine in concept and presentation. Taking that away is homogenisation to the current trend.
"Very" masculine? I'm not seeing rippling pectorals, save for the stylised BA armour. The codpiece is fairly understated. In fact, minus the head, and you could have anyone in that armour. Almost like that's why they're kinda popular as a blank slate...
So, no, it's not homogenisation - Space Marines are Space Marines regardless of their gender, because they're so much more than that.
So it's not the fact they're men it's that they're men. Thanks, but women can still empathise with men.
Women can empathise with men, but representation isn't about empathising. I'm not really sure where you dreamt that idea up.
Again - answer the question - what's wrong with women being part of the mainline flagship faction? Without using the word "lore" or "established", please.
Again, where did I claim authority?
You said that representation was a joke. That was a claim to authority or fact, made implicitly. Don't try and walk that back.
I know what representation is
*citation needed*, because all your comments indicate you have no clue at all, considering you're tying it to empathy, which misses the point completely.
I know it to be a farce because I know people are perfectly capable of enjoying things that they or people like them aren't in. That's because of empathy.
Point proven - empathy has nothing to do with representation. This is something you'd be aware of if you knew what representation was.
You might be on something, but it's not the ball. As far as I saw he was saying men's clubs were okay, which I really can't see being a big problem outside of schmoozey corporate types.
It was explicitly said that they were okay making environments toxic towards women. In what world is that something to be applauded?
I'm not talking "this club just happens to be all men", this is literally "we're driving women away". That's messed up.
Sticking with the fluff isn't a bad faith argument
The question is simple: do you value made up words over the enjoyment and inclusion of other human beings?
don't want to see it changed so that someone else might just theoretically enjoy it more.
There's no theory about it. I'd enjoy it a hell of a lot more.
Almost any change to the fluff is met with resistance, ideologically motivated ones understandably more so.
And is that supposed to be an excuse?
Argive wrote:In the same vein would a woman's only wargaming club be ok? Generally curious to know what people think.
We had a woman's only swimming from 8-9pm on Wednesdays at my old pool for example.
Women are historically more excluded and cast out than men are, and women's only spaces tend to exist to avoid male "interference" - which I'm sure you don't need me to elaborate on. Men's only spaces (and by that, I refer to communally enforced ones, like the swimming pool) don't exist because there is very little threat from women. Again, this is not a blanket statement, but simply a statistical fact.
Everything I have said went over your head it seems. Its the classic "ohh you just don't want diversity because you're <insert 'ist' word>" argument" you are spouting
Women are not uninterested in Warhammer because of lack of female space marines, they are not interested because its Warhammer...
And if the women are already interested in Warhammer and are customers, then what's the problem??
The problem is made up.
Now - It could be a problem with the local communities but that's NOTHING to do with lore, or warhammer mdels. And everything to do with building a community. No different to any other niche club. If you attack men left right and centre telling them they are bad for liking Warhammer male only space marines theme as a woman, how on earth do you think they will welcome you? Hobby is not the vehicle to "make change" its a hobby. People are not interested in getting preached to or attacked.. Im till amazed people keep doing this.
Just like some men are interested in lipstick and eye lashes BUT the vast majority of the consumer base is women vast majority of men are not interested. So why aren't you championing to cosmetic companies they need to change their product to include men?
Ugly truth is, certain demographics are just interested in certain things. There is a reason why Warhammer 40k/wargaming/minature customer base is like 95% men with disposable income.. It has ZERO to do with lack of female space marine models. And everything to do with the fact boys like to play with toy soldiers more than girls. As much as it might hurt your feelings, its just reality. We know this as scientific fact and have known this for decades. Men and boys like "things" and women are more interested in people (obviously not always but these are TRENDS born form statistics).
And just because some people go against the grain it should not dictate the majority experience. People can always make their own thing if they are truly unhappy or go and do something completely different... Nobody is forcing people to become part of a community. You don't try to become part of community by attacking community and trying to change communtiy...
So nobody will have an issue with putting whatever heads you want on your plastic dollies. But when you try to change and dictate what dollies other people can or cannot buy. It becomes an issue in my book.
FYI - I'm very proud of my community we have people of all ilk: women, men & transgender folk we don't discriminate against anyone. If you chill and wana play games you will be welcome. And latterly nobody cares or mentions that space marines are all dudes. Ever.
We have had zero issues so far. But I'd think if someone turned out of the blue and wanted to join our community and the first thing they said was that they have issues with the hobby because XYZ and they hate it and its clearly bigoted, and there's too many white men in the group and clearly were all bigoted and hate women, they will play by themselves..
Because out in the wild NOBODY CARES. People who want to paly Warhammer/ wargames will engage in the hobby because there is ZERO actual barriers other then time, money and being a chill human. Perpetuating this nonsense online and exerting pressure for change is lazy activism. Keep that crap out of hobbies.
On your last point, women only spaces is quite simply segregation. However you dress it. BUT i do actually agree. Women have a physical disadvantage in physical altercation. Maybe the same reason women need women only swimming, is the reason why female space marines doesn't make sense? I.e. Men are big and aggressive which is what you want for a 7ft tall killing post human machine..
I think having X only clubs for anyone should not be a thing.
The suggestion that Sisters of Battle be made the new flagship faction is hilarious because it runs into the exact same problem, and people start to wonder why the flagship faction doesn't have "misters of battle".
Ugly truth is, certain demographics are just interested in certain things. There is a reason why Warhammer 40k/wargaming/minature customer base is like 95% men with disposable income.. It has ZERO to do with lack of female space marine models. And everything to do with the fact boys like to play with toy soldiers more than girls. As much as it might hurt your feelings, its just reality. We know this as scientific fact and have known this for decades. Men and boys like "things" and women are more interested in people (obviously not always but these are TRENDS born form statistics).
Ugh, no. None of this is 'scientific fact.' These are marketing focuses and how children are socialized with deliberation and intent. Boys are taught toy soldiers (or fast cars, or other socially 'macho' things), while girls toys teach child-rearing, to a gross and excessive degree (while simultaneously teaching boys to avoid such things).
You can see the changes happen in real time in other areas. When I was kid, girls just 'didn't play video games' (once they existed, anyway). Well, it turns out now that they do, and impressively large numbers. Gosh, I wonder if toy soldiers could be the same...
Ugly truth is, certain demographics are just interested in certain things. There is a reason why Warhammer 40k/wargaming/minature customer base is like 95% men with disposable income.. It has ZERO to do with lack of female space marine models. And everything to do with the fact boys like to play with toy soldiers more than girls. As much as it might hurt your feelings, its just reality. We know this as scientific fact and have known this for decades. Men and boys like "things" and women are more interested in people (obviously not always but these are TRENDS born form statistics).
Ugh, no. None of this is 'scientific fact.' These are marketing focuses and how children are socialized with deliberation and intent. Boys are taught toy soldiers (or fast cars, or other socially 'macho' things), while girls toys teach child-rearing, to a gross and excessive degree (while simultaneously teaching boys to avoid such things).
You can see the changes happen in real time in other areas. When I was kid, girls just 'didn't play video games' (once they existed, anyway). Well, it turns out now that they do, and impressively large numbers. Gosh, I wonder if toy soldiers could be the same...
But we are not talking about computer games though are we.
Have you actually looked into it? Or are you just going to say no because it doesn't fit your life narrative? Id google Gender-Equality-Personality- Paradox. Its very interesting research. Based on research from Switzerland which is arguably the most egalitarian western society, the finding is that the more egaliterian society becomes the more different personality differences in genders.. As in the more equal you make women and men the more their personalities and tendencies differ.
Believe what you want. Boys be running around pretending to shoot each other with sticks and girls are playing tea party. Nobody teaches that to kids. They just do it. Do you have children? Have you been to a kids birthday party? NOBODY is telling the kids what games to play apart from you it seems. Leave them to it and it just occurs naturally and becomes more pronounced with age.
You not wanting that to be real is not the same as there not being a natural order to things. Rage all you want, but we see already the kind of humans this warped ideology is producing and it isn't good.
Sure you could try to immasculate boys by telling them that the thing they want to do is bad, and the toy they want to play with is bad, but you're then engaging in some messed up social eugenics brainwashing.. That's no good to anybody. Apart from maybe someone that sits there in his arm chair and says " see! boy playing with doll good!!! I right" without caring what's actually good for the boys or the girls...
What's bad or unnatural about boyz playing with dolls? I know my brother and I played with dolls just fine. It's also scientific fact that there is very little "natural" about how gender groups behave and that there are more differences within the group of women than between men and women.
I notice that it's weird that the same people who are super into diversity seem also to be pro-segregation for a lot of the stuff I see happening in America atm. It's the same idea where they want equality for women in STEM fields but none of the deadly and dangerous careers for men like coal mining or other ones where the skew towards men only is like in the 90% range.
The only persons in this thread that seem to be for pro-segregation are the ones that are arguing against diversity. Most reasonable people who support female space marines are asking for an addition which, I promise, will not actually hurt the current male-only model range of the faction so popular, it makes up a full half of the hobby.
Additionally, most reasonable people don't want those dangerous careers for anyone, regardless of gender. It's funny. You do realize that prior to laws preventing it, children of all things were working in coal mines?
Also, what the hell. I thought this dumpster fire of a thread had finally petered out before more people came back to add some gasoline before it probably gets locked. Feels like borderline twitter between all the buzzwords being thrown around between calling people sexists/Marxists.
I think some of the people here are forgetting this is a game of toy soldiers, if you have to resolve to using ad hominems to prove your point, I think that's very indicative of you showing your insecurity when it comes to escapism if you have this compulsion to have diversity quotas met in things like such a niche hobby. Pushing for stuff like this is slacktivism at its finest.
And yet, adding female space marines or indeed expanding the option of any faction to include more women will hurt neither the faction nor the hobby. If you want to boil it down, paying customers would like the option to include women in the roster of space marines. That's what they want in their toy soldier game that they may have already invested thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours into. What should be the red flag to any reasonable person is why some people are highly resistant to the idea.
It's explicit that some people in this thread have made it clear that they only care about representation of females in SM because they're the most popular. Not because it would add any actual aesthetic or writing value or be consistent with the established canon (and yes, one-off mentions from before the lore was coalesced into a distinct entity doesn't count towards that, just like how space marines were originally normal people in 1st edition doesn't count as canon). That in itself shows they don't respect the integrity of the lore because this is the exact same tactic used for pushing race-swaps in established superheroes. People pushing a black Batman or Superman are desperate to have a cheap way of associating their racial group with the same attention/recognition as heroes that have decades of writing/art for who they are. Ironically, they abandon existing heroes like Steel, Black Lightning, Static, etc or making new, more racially diverse heroes over race-swapping because they're lazy and don't want to put the effort and time to help develop characters that can both engaging and racially diverse. And before you say that there are alternate versions of Batman/Superman, I'm not against elseworlds versions, but rather the explicit attempt to replace the mainstream version with a race-swap because it's the most popular hero so that race gets the screentime, which IMO, is a disservice for both the character and the actual race you're attempting to depict. What do people first think of when you hear Superman? Clark Kent. Likewise with Bruce Wayne for Batman. There's a reason why Miles Morales is usually referred to Miles Morales and not by Spider Man, because when you think of Spider Man, most people think Peter Parker. People know who these characters are for a reason, and trying to change that core aspect for the sake of diversity is effectively demonstrating a lack of respect for the core material.
You're pretending that space marines are some sacred relic, when really they're just the hobby flagship and cashcow. GW doesn't even respect their aesthetic or established canon if you look at some of the garbage they've pushed out in the name of Space Marines in the past.
As for the rest of your rant, I don't even know where to begin. Fictional characters change all the time. Entire new continuities are created in order to give new faces and fresh perspectives to, say, Thor, Hulk, Captain America, Ms Marvel, and so on. And on the opposite side, we have people who lose their gak over the idea of Idra Elbis playing James Bond.
Your entire argument seems to boil down to space marines have always been this way and should not change, and if women want to play with women toy soldiers they should find another hobby or be happy with the few scraps there are. Unless you're under the misconception that Games Workshop will support literally any other army as much as they support Space Marines?
If you are trying to push social activism or agenda out of some bizarre desire to be a moral busybody to police what people should want, I'm sorry to say that you can probably do a lot better than starting with a niche hobby whose whole background was a satirical take on one of the worst human empires in space.
Some people want to play with male space marines. Some people want to play with female space marines. Other people don't care. I don't see how any of these have to be mutually exclusive, except for the people who, strangely enough, get legitimately upset because they want there to be ONLY boy astartes.
ArcaneHorror wrote: I wouldn't be against it as long as the story of them being written in is done well.
Which is precisely why I'm against GW doing it officially because given their track record with Primaris, it'd be a hamfisted and badly done on top of it being unnecessary.
Which happens to coincidentally coincide with your desire to not see female space marines. On the other hand, if you're worried about GW putting out hamfisted and badly done lore to justify any change in their business practices, you may as well give up on the hobby because I have news for you--that is their standard MO not the exception. Elegance does not describe, say, the Eldar/Aeldari name change, the Ynnari, the numerous Necron and C'tan reworks and so on.
So if you could swallow everything GW has done before, what's the difference with women space marines?
Everything I have said went over your head it seems. Its the classic "ohh you just don't want diversity because you're <insert 'ist' word>" argument" you are spouting
Women are not uninterested in Warhammer because of lack of female space marines, they are not interested because its Warhammer...
More women would be interested in Warhammer if it had better representation. This is fact. More women would be interested in space marines if they had a female line, too.
And if the women are already interested in Warhammer and are customers, then what's the problem??
Because they're paying customers or potential customers and that's what they want? The argument you're making is that the current hobby is perfect and any complaints, such as people who play certain would like half as much love as GW heaps on space marines, should just shut up and be happy with what they have.
Of the three women I know that play 40k, one plays necrons/sob, one plays dark eldar, and one plays daemons, eldar, Tau, dark eldar, sob, and tyranids. Not one of them play Space Marines, because it's a boys' club in an already male dominated hobby, among other reasons.
Now - It could be a problem with the local communities but that's NOTHING to do with lore, or warhammer mdels. And everything to do with building a community. No different to any other niche club. If you attack men left right and centre telling them they are bad for liking Warhammer male only space marines theme as a woman, how on earth do you think they will welcome you? Hobby is not the vehicle to "make change" its a hobby. People are not interested in getting preached to or attacked.. Im till amazed people keep doing this.
There are people in this thread that are saying that the hobby is not for people that want something different than what they imagine the hobby should be. You can't have a community when you have people who are already exceedingly catered to by the status quo telling people (who have just as much right, being paying customers) who happen to want a change that will in no way impact the aforementioned people to go feth themselves.
Just like some men are interested in lipstick and eye lashes BUT the vast majority of the consumer base is women vast majority of men are not interested. So why aren't you championing to cosmetic companies they need to change their product to include men?
Ugly truth is, certain demographics are just interested in certain things. There is a reason why Warhammer 40k/wargaming/minature customer base is like 95% men with disposable income.. It has ZERO to do with lack of female space marine models. And everything to do with the fact boys like to play with toy soldiers more than girls. As much as it might hurt your feelings, its just reality. We know this as scientific fact and have known this for decades. Men and boys like "things" and women are more interested in people (obviously not always but these are TRENDS born form statistics).
I'm sure the video gaming industry used to think the exact same way...until they started targeting the female demographic. Now women game arguably as much or more than men. As I pointed out earlier, women are not really well represented in the game at all, outsider of the SoB, who I'd like to remind you, can include more men in their line-up than the rest of the Imperium factions can put together, and I don't think anyone has lost their gak because of it.
Plenty of women like Warhammer. Plenty of women try Warhammer. And plenty of women are driven out of the hobby because some people make it their goal in life to make the experience into a cesspool. I don't think many men would stick around in a hobby where people are frequently condescending and hostile up to the point of being threatened and spit on.
And just because some people go against the grain it should not dictate the majority experience. People can always make their own thing if they are truly unhappy or go and do something completely different... Nobody is forcing people to become part of a community. You don't try to become part of community by attacking community and trying to change communtiy...
As stated before, the only people who seem unreasonably upset are the ones who who demand that space marines be mono gendered.
So nobody will have an issue with putting whatever heads you want on your plastic dollies. But when you try to change and dictate what dollies other people can or cannot buy. It becomes an issue in my book.
You've literally been arguing this whole time about what people cannot buy. There is a demand for female space marines, and you're saying people shouldn't have that option for reasons.
FYI - I'm very proud of my community we have people of all ilk: women, men & transgender folk we don't discriminate against anyone. If you chill and wana play games you will be welcome. And latterly nobody cares or mentions that space marines are all dudes. Ever.
We have had zero issues so far. But I'd think if someone turned out of the blue and wanted to join our community and the first thing they said was that they have issues with the hobby because XYZ and they hate it and its clearly bigoted, and there's too many white men in the group and clearly were all bigoted and hate women, they will play by themselves..
Because out in the wild NOBODY CARES. People who want to paly Warhammer/ wargames will engage in the hobby because there is ZERO actual barriers other then time, money and being a chill human. Perpetuating this nonsense online and exerting pressure for change is lazy activism. Keep that crap out of hobbies.
"We never have any problems because people know to follow the rules and who's on top."
Maybe next time you're in your community, ask if anyone would have a problem with female space marines, then once everyone's had their say, look into the eyes of all the women, men, and transgendered individuals in your community and tell them to their face that you think the game has enough diversity and if women want to play with women toy soldiers, they should be happy with what they have or go away. I'm sure it will be enlightening.
On your last point, women only spaces is quite simply segregation. However you dress it. BUT i do actually agree. Women have a physical disadvantage in physical altercation.
Maybe the same reason women need women only swimming, is the reason why female space marines doesn't make sense? I.e. Men are big and aggressive which is what you want for a 7ft tall killing post human machine..
I think having X only clubs for anyone should not be a thing.
Food for thought.
Well we've finally gotten there. We don't deserve women plastic soldier space marines because real life women are at a physical disadvantage, ignoring the fact that a few exceptional women are so physically fit that they could literally snap most WH40k players in half.
Maybe GW should stop marketing Space Marines as white guys because men of African and Mediterranean descent make up the overwhelming majority of successful athletes.
Rihgu wrote: The suggestion that Sisters of Battle be made the new flagship faction is hilarious because it runs into the exact same problem, and people start to wonder why the flagship faction doesn't have "misters of battle".
Sisters of Battle already can include men in their order of battle. However, the suggestion is laughable because GW would never support another faction half as well as they support space marines.
Personally, I wouldn't be upset if a bunch of men were armored as my ladies, officially recognized as female, and took the fight to the Emperor's enemies. I'd welcome it, in fact, if it meant we got better haircut options. We'll probably see that before we see mixed or women only IG regiments or female space marines anyway.
Grimskul wrote:I notice that it's weird that the same people who are super into diversity seem also to be pro-segregation for a lot of the stuff I see happening in America atm.
Women's only swimming pools isn't segregation. It's protection.
If women still want to, they can join in with mixed gender swimming hours - but for many (and for a statistically good reason), they may feel threatened in a mixed gender pool. That's not what segregation is at all.
I think some of the people here are forgetting this is a game of toy soldiers
I know, right! Imagine these people being so threatened by women toy soldiers.
I think that's very indicative of you showing your insecurity when it comes to escapism if you have this compulsion to have diversity quotas met in things like such a niche hobby. Pushing for stuff like this is slacktivism at its finest.
And likewise for the same people who can't accept that other people want to see *representation* (not diversity) in their escapism. Pushing against it is simple mean-spiritedness and lack of empathy at its peak.
It would literally not require anyone to change their current collection, or even future collection of toy soldiers to include women Astartes. You could live your lives very peacefully. But instead, y'all choose to value some words printed thirty years ago instead of hearing out the lived experiences of actual people.
It's explicit that some people in this thread have made it clear that they only care about representation of females in SM because they're the most popular.
No, that's not the *only* reason. But it is the main reason as to "why Space Marines", because just adding random women faction into the game to have them immediately forgotten about *would* be false activism and false representation, and the biggest reason as to "why at all" is "why not".
So far, the only reasons given for "why not" are "because that's the way it is", which is the weakest possible argument you could give.
Defend its validity from the ground up, not because it simply *is*. Justify its existence with more depth than the paper it's printed on. Tell me why some words mean that women should be excluded from the most iconic 40k faction, and why that's apparently fine.
Not because it would add any actual aesthetic or writing value
Women Astartes look cool - there's your aesthetic value.
Adding representation for women is a pretty strong value too. Not that you seem to be able to understand that.
or be consistent with the established canon (and yes, one-off mentions from before the lore was coalesced into a distinct entity doesn't count towards that, just like how space marines were originally normal people in 1st edition doesn't count as canon).
Tell me why some words thirty years ago mean people should feel alienated in the current community.
That in itself shows they don't respect the integrity of the lore because this is the exact same tactic used for pushing race-swaps in established superheroes.
Race-swapping is notably different, and not relevant to simply *adding women*. No-one's coming to take away your man war dollies - only that they can have their own not!man war dollies.
Not sure why that would bother you.
Ironically, they abandon existing heroes like Steel, Black Lightning, Static, etc or making new, more racially diverse heroes over race-swapping because they're lazy and don't want to put the effort and time to help develop characters that can both engaging and racially diverse.
You make an excellent reason as to why people want representation in Space Marines though - because Space Marines are the big one, the Superman compared to Steel. But unlike with superheroes, you don't have to kill off or stop people from having their male Astartes while also having women Astartes.
Unless you can guarantee me that this "original all women" faction would get all the same attention and focus and spotlight as Space Marines (which would require supreme amounts of effort, considering the MASSIVE cultural clout that Space Marines have), you're easier just writing that "recruits comes from boys and girls across the Imperium" in the next Codex.
And before you say that there are alternate versions of Batman/Superman, I'm not against elseworlds versions, but rather the explicit attempt to replace the mainstream version with a race-swap because it's the most popular hero so that race gets the screentime, which IMO, is a disservice for both the character and the actual race you're attempting to depict.
Good thing adding women Astartes doesn't stop you having men.
This is what I mean by your defensiveness - no-one's stopping you from carrying on with *your* stuff. You won't be threatened, you won't have people enforcing diversity quotas on *your* models. You can have the sausage fest you've always dreamed of in your Space Marine collection - but what's so bad about literally just *allowing* women?
People know who these characters are for a reason, and trying to change that core aspect for the sake of diversity is effectively demonstrating a lack of respect for the core material.
Except these comic book characters are single characters, a single identity or person. Space Marines are a faction. They're not the same thing, and you know it.
And, as I keep mentioning, adding women won't get rid of men. You don't have to be afraid.
If you are trying to push social activism or agenda out of some bizarre desire to be a moral busybody to police what people should want, I'm sorry to say that you can probably do a lot better than starting with a niche hobby whose whole background was a satirical take on one of the worst human empires in space.
And there's the sound of the gate being slammed shut.
ArcaneHorror wrote:I wouldn't be against it as long as the story of them being written in is done well.
It literally doesn't need anything more than a line in the Codex saying how young children are recruited, or how "boys and girls across the Imperium are recruited and forged into Space Marines". It's really as simple as that, in the same way that Hunters, Stalkers, Stormravens, and Centurions exist.
Grimskul wrote:Which is precisely why I'm against GW doing it officially because given their track record with Primaris, it'd be a hamfisted and badly done on top of it being unnecessary.
And you're the arbiter on what's necessary and unnecessary now? On what grounds?
Argive wrote:Everything I have said went over your head it seems. Its the classic "ohh you just don't want diversity because you're <insert 'ist' word>" argument" you are spouting
I mean, you've yet to give me a reason why you're so adverse to representation. I've not called anyone a sexist - but I am wondering why else people would be so opposed to rewriting some fake make believe fiction.
Women are not uninterested in Warhammer because of lack of female space marines, they are not interested because its Warhammer...
And your source for that being...?
And if the women are already interested in Warhammer and are customers, then what's the problem??
And what if those women feel increasingly driven away by people such as yourself telling them that their experiences are invalid and that they are apparently "scientifically" meant to dislike 40k (oh, and I'll get to that one).
The problem is made up.
Hey guys! It's okay! The man just told us that women's concerns are nothing to worry about, they made it all up, I'm glad The Man told us all that!
Sorry, but I'm not taking your word that everything's fine and dandy when I've got actual people telling me that it ain't.
Now - It could be a problem with the local communities but that's NOTHING to do with lore, or warhammer mdels. And everything to do with building a community. No different to any other niche club.
You know what a great way to build a community is? To make them feel welcome. How could you help make women feel welcome? By making the flagship faction inclusive of women. You know, as well as not telling them that they're scientifically predisposed against playing with toy soldiers.
If you attack men left right and centre telling them they are bad for liking Warhammer male only space marines
No-one's "attacking" you, or saying you're bad for liking male Marines. We're literally just asking for women Space Marines. That fact you take that as an attack is the problem here.
Im till amazed people keep doing this.
I know, I'm also amazed that people find a headswap so terrifying that they see it as a personal attack.
Just like some men are interested in lipstick and eye lashes BUT the vast majority of the consumer base is women vast majority of men are not interested. So why aren't you championing to cosmetic companies they need to change their product to include men?
I *do*. But I'm on a toy soldiers forum right now, so forgive me if that's not what I'm talking about right now.
Ugly truth is, certain demographics are just interested in certain things.
Uhhhh, no.
There is a reason why Warhammer 40k/wargaming/minature customer base is like 95% men with disposable income..
Because it's marketed towards that audience, and the audience gatekeep the hell out of it?
It has ZERO to do with lack of female space marine models. And everything to do with the fact boys like to play with toy soldiers more than girls.
And have you considered that's because toy soldiers are marketed towards boys and not girls, and not because of any inherent biological reason?
As much as it might hurt your feelings, its just reality. We know this as scientific fact and have known this for decades. Men and boys like "things" and women are more interested in people (obviously not always but these are TRENDS born form statistics).
I would not have the hours in the day to tell you how wrong you are, but literally every word of that sentence is wrong, and I lost brain cells reading it.
Seriously, just go read a book and inform yourself better before I lose any more brain cells.
So nobody will have an issue with putting whatever heads you want on your plastic dollies.
Could've fooled me.
But when you try to change and dictate what dollies other people can or cannot buy. It becomes an issue in my book.
But no-one is! Adding women Astartes wouldn't change your models in the slightest! Why on earth do you think it would?
On your last point, women only spaces is quite simply segregation.
It literally isn't. Segregation is forcible separation of minority groups, where they cannot join in with majority/dominant activities. Women can still go to mixed gender sessions - if they didn't feel threatened by men.
Women have a physical disadvantage in physical altercation.
Maybe the same reason women need women only swimming, is the reason why female space marines doesn't make sense? I.e. Men are big and aggressive which is what you want for a 7ft tall killing post human machine..
THAT'S your takeaway from this?? That women are scared of men because they're big and aggressive, and not because a frankly terrifying amount of women are harassed and sexually assaulted by men?? And worse yet, you play that off as "just part of being a man"??
Get in the bin, seriously.
I think having X only clubs for anyone should not be a thing.
If men could, you know, just stop with harassing women and making them feel intimidated to the point where they need those groups for their own safety, that would be preferable.
Voss wrote:Ugh, no. None of this is 'scientific fact.' These are marketing focuses and how children are socialized with deliberation and intent. Boys are taught toy soldiers (or fast cars, or other socially 'macho' things), while girls toys teach child-rearing, to a gross and excessive degree (while simultaneously teaching boys to avoid such things).
You can see the changes happen in real time in other areas. When I was kid, girls just 'didn't play video games' (once they existed, anyway). Well, it turns out now that they do, and impressively large numbers. Gosh, I wonder if toy soldiers could be the same...
Abso-goddamn-lutely.
Argive wrote:Have you actually looked into it?
Have you?
Or are you just going to say no because it doesn't fit your life narrative? Id google Gender-Equality-Personality- Paradox. Its very interesting research. Based on research from Switzerland which is arguably the most egalitarian western society, the finding is that the more egaliterian society becomes the more different personality differences in genders.. As in the more equal you make women and men the more their personalities and tendencies differ.
Have you researched phenomenology? Literally any academic writing on gender and the construction of gender identity? Because you might want to start there.
Believe what you want. Boys be running around pretending to shoot each other with sticks and girls are playing tea party. Nobody teaches that to kids. They just do it.
Do you have children? Have you been to a kids birthday party?
NOBODY is telling the kids what games to play apart from you it seems. Leave them to it and it just occurs naturally and becomes more pronounced with age.
You know what I do see? Girls running around pretending to shoot eachother, and boys playing tea party. But I'm sure you'd just tell them to stop, because they're not supposed to be doing that either.
Also like your point is entirely inaccurate, and just outright wrong. Again, just go read literally any book on phenomenology.
You not wanting that to be real is not the same as there not being a natural order to things.
No such natural order exists.
Sure you could try to immasculate boys by telling them that the thing they want to do is bad, and the toy they want to play with is bad, but you're then engaging in some messed up social eugenics brainwashing.. That's no good to anybody. Apart from maybe someone that sits there in his arm chair and says " see! boy playing with doll good!!! I right" without caring what's actually good for the boys or the girls...
Believe what you want. Boys be running around pretending to shoot each other with sticks and girls are playing tea party. Nobody teaches that to kids. They just do it.
Do you have children? Have you been to a kids birthday party?
NOBODY is telling the kids what games to play apart from you it seems. Leave them to it and it just occurs naturally and becomes more pronounced with age.
This is completely missing the issue. Boys run around shooting each other and girls play tea party because they are told from a very early age, by their parents, or by other adults in their community, or by the constant bombardment of gender - oriented marketing that these are the appropriate games for their gender. 'Tea parties' are not encoded in a girl's genes... They have to learn the concept from somewhere. And yes, of course that becomes more pronounced with age. The longer someone is told to behave a certain way, the more ingrained that becomes.
My girls have always been told by us that they can play with whatever toys grab their fancy, and they watch no commercial television. They play doctors, they play with cars, and stuffed toys, and star wars figures, and lego, and dress ups, and they run around the yard building traps for baddies. To the best of my knowledge, they've never had a tea party.
Wargaming is only a 'boys' hobby because society has spent generations convincing girls that there's something wrong with them if they like that sort of thing.
Have none of these peeps claiming boys don't play with "dolls" had GI Joe or Action Man when they were young 'uns?
Of course anyone arguing A is for boys and B is for girls because of "biology" is spouting pseudo-science nonsense or ideas that were disproven yonks ago.
The idea that there are no broad biological gender preferences except those created by society is wrong.
Society is created by those with biology, it's tenets are rooted there.
There's even a study which shows that male and female monkeys prefer different types of toys.
Yes because humans and monkeys are the same. You are not genetically predetermined to like certain hobbies. Utter nonsense.
"Society is created by those with biology". There is literally not a single part of that sentence that makes any sense whatsoever. Nukes were created with those with biology does that make nukes biology? How about a bin lorry? As soon as people can't defend "no female SM" without using "but the lore", they always go into a complete misunderstanding of scientific knowledge to justify a "no girls allowed" policy.
"Females are weaker than males" - Not in a future where genetic manipulation is commonplace.
"Women don't want to play SM anyway" - Weird that there are women hobbyists who make female SM anyway and then get abused on social media for "breaking the lore".
"Girls don't want to play with toy soldiers" - Only if they've been brought up to believe they aren't supposed to.
"Monkeys do X" - Humans aren't monkeys. Use studies that use human subjects if you want to argue sociology.
the only problem i'm seeing here is that gw just puts way too much attention on marines, seemingly inflating this issue o representation. every other imperium faction includes everyone, eldar are female and male. I think many issues with 40 can be boiled down to space marines being the flagship "good guys"
(if ya want ta get on marines about somethin, talk about how they're all brainwashed to support the ideals of the just as horrible as chaos imperium)
Monkeys are very similar to humans.
They also show culture isn't the big issue. There's no monkey dad beating his monkey son for playing with his monkey doll.
Most boys and girls will gravitate to fairly gendered styles of play. This was not decided by the supreme council of 300 in the mists of time, but from the natural inclinations of people.
Animus wrote: Monkeys are very similar to humans.
They also show culture isn't the big issue. There's no monkey dad beating his monkey son for playing with his monkey doll.
Most boys and girls will gravitate to fairly gendered styles of play. This was not decided by the supreme council of 300 in the mists of time, but from the natural inclinations of people.
If the monkey dad isn't beating his monkey son for using a doll and a human is, then culture absolutely is the issue.
If you go your entire life being told "dolls are for girls, if I see you with a doll I'll beat you" that's culture impacting development. A father isn't genetically predisposed to beating his son because he isn't playing with a football, he's doing it because society has told him that men are supposed to be tough, show no emotion, and not play with dolls because that's a girly thing. Men's mental health is one of the most under-discussed topics in modern society because a man showing emotion/asking for help is immediately discarded as weak.
Spoiler:
It's why male suicide rates are so high
There is not a single scrap of scientific evidence, biological/sociological/psychological/otherwise, that concludes that humans are genetically predetermined to like a hobby at birth. The environment in which you grow absolutely influences what you are most likely to be interested in but even then it will not determine 100% your interests. For example, my family is very into sports, especially football, and I stopped even caring about football and sport in general by the age of 6 and I started Warhammer at age 11 after years of toy soldiers, Transformers, toy cars, and Lego.
I have asked several times, as has Smudge, as has Gert, what would the literal harm be of making female space marines a reality? So far, 13 pages of us asking, not a single answer. But what we do get is straw man marxist / racist accusations, by people who would be better off hosting the Fox and Friends hour, spouting about how The Left is coming to destroy Christmas!
Or better yet, that WE are the ones who hate diversity, because we are somehow keeping men OUT of the spot light.
Just have the personal courage to answer the question.
The point is there is no monkey culture forcing monkey children to play with set toys.
Humans do have culture, but they also have biology.
The monkey example shows that biology alone can determine this.
Culture will have an effect, but only again, culture rises from biology reality. Why are soldiers or manual labours overwhelming male, through history and across cultures over the world? No one decided it, it's just a matter of biology.
Animus wrote: Monkeys are very similar to humans.
They also show culture isn't the big issue. There's no monkey dad beating his monkey son for playing with his monkey doll.
Most boys and girls will gravitate to fairly gendered styles of play. This was not decided by the supreme council of 300 in the mists of time, but from the natural inclinations of people.
Glad to know we have an expert on animals and anthropology here! Tell me, what publications can I find your research in?
Oh btw Animus, simians (monkeys, chimps, gorillas) do have societal features just veeeery simplified versions of the ones humans have because we're more evolved. Chimps have even been compared to early human hunter/gatherer societies.
Sure, but they don't have the ability to spread gender memes powerful enough to override their basic instincts.
Again, there's not biggoted monkey dad's making sure there sons aren't sissies.
I find that the Sisters of Battle and the Silent Sisters add a bit of mysticism to the game. From a purely male-centric view having a more limited class(es) of female fighters makes their contributions more significant and allows for richer and deeper story telling. Throwing them into the grinder with all the other male classes would dilute this. I would be against it
If changing SoB to include men would make the game easier for certain groups of people to be able to join and engage with the hobby sure go for it. The difference between SM and SoB is that the SoB were specifically created in-universe to skirt laws the forbade the church from having "men under arms". SM are only male because female minis didn't sell in the olden' dayes' and despite the fact that genetic enhancement is very common in 40k and the Primaris project proved that the Emperor's work could not only be changed but improved, so the lore reason behind not adding female SM is "ew icky girls".
There absolutely should be more models dedicated to the Ecclisiarchy's technically illegal frateris militia, I would love to see that.
BertBert wrote: Can we have misters of battle, too? What would be the harm in that?
None-but it wouldn’t really be a benefit either.
Men are already well-represented in 40k. While there’s no harm in adding a faction of male power-armored humans, there’s also not much reason to do so.
Gert wrote: If changing SoB to include men would make the game easier for certain groups of people to be able to join and engage with the hobby sure go for it. The difference between SM and SoB is that the SoB were specifically created in-universe to skirt laws the forbade the church from having "men under arms". SM are only male because female minis didn't sell in the olden' dayes' and despite the fact that genetic enhancement is very common in 40k and the Primaris project proved that the Emperor's work could not only be changed but improved, so the lore reason behind not adding female SM is "ew icky girls".
There absolutely should be more models dedicated to the Ecclisiarchy's technically illegal frateris militia, I would love to see that.
Lol.
So why protect one side of the lore and not the other despite it being just as constant.
Because SoB being women is their identity, it's literally in the name.
Space Marines being only men is not their identity. It's part of their background but on the surface, a blank slate of Power Armour is just as likely to be male as female. It's the Brienne of Tarth situation, Catelyn didn't know Brienne was a woman until the helmet came off. SM go further with the blank slate idea by having voice modulators in their helms and it is constantly said that most mortals can't tell one SM from another (which is ironically how SM view most mortals).
Gert wrote: I...so the lore reason behind not adding female SM is "ew icky girls".
Wouldn't another plausible reason be that males make for better "templates"? As for an expanded ecclesiarchy range, you can definitely count me in on that.
Gert wrote: Because SoB being women is their identity, it's literally in the name.
Space Marines being only men is not their identity.
Honestly, it’s not even the lore I’m that concerned with.
It’s the fact that men already have plenty of representation, while women have much less. Makes those who aren’t men feel less welcome. Again-no massive harm to adding “Misters of Battle” but no real benefit either.
The thing is though that the "template" is a prepubescent child that has none of the gribblies an adult has so cutting them open and sticking in more organs and doing some genetic tampering isn't really a big deal, especially when the genetic tech of 40k can be described as "future science that us modern simple folk wouldn't understand".
Gert wrote: Because SoB being women is their identity, it's literally in the name.
Space Marines being only men is not their identity.
Honestly, it’s not even the lore I’m that concerned with.
It’s the fact that men already have plenty of representation, while women have much less. Makes those who aren’t men feel less welcome. Again-no massive harm to adding “Misters of Battle” but no real benefit either.
Gert wrote: Because SoB being women is their identity, it's literally in the name.
Space Marines being only men is not their identity.
Honestly, it’s not even the lore I’m that concerned with.
It’s the fact that men already have plenty of representation, while women have much less. Makes those who aren’t men feel less welcome. Again-no massive harm to adding “Misters of Battle” but no real benefit either.
So it's about releasing more female models period and not Space Marines specifically? Or is it Space Marines because they are the center piece of 40k and we can't have only men in that role?
Bit of column A bit of column B.
More female models is a good thing but they keep getting made as either single-choice characters (Raine) or limited ed (Catachan officer).
Of course I don't want to see anymore SM releases for some time but if GW did have to do more then making the most marketed and marketable faction in the game less boy's club would be neat.
Gert wrote: Have none of these peeps claiming boys don't play with "dolls" had GI Joe or Action Man when they were young 'uns?
Of course anyone arguing A is for boys and B is for girls because of "biology" is spouting pseudo-science nonsense or ideas that were disproven yonks ago.
Take a step back, lol. Have none of these peeps claiming boys don't play with dolls painted a warhammer miniature?
Gert wrote: Because SoB being women is their identity, it's literally in the name.
Space Marines being only men is not their identity.
Honestly, it’s not even the lore I’m that concerned with.
It’s the fact that men already have plenty of representation, while women have much less. Makes those who aren’t men feel less welcome. Again-no massive harm to adding “Misters of Battle” but no real benefit either.
So it's about releasing more female models period and not Space Marines specifically? Or is it Space Marines because they are the center piece of 40k and we can't have only men in that role?
I mean it is, but 50% of the model releases for 40k are space marines, so you'd literally have to make every other model for every other faction from now on a woman to come close to parity, lol.
Gert wrote: Bit of column A bit of column B.
More female models is a good thing but they keep getting made as either single-choice characters (Raine) or limited ed (Catachan officer).
Of course I don't want to see anymore SM releases for some time but if GW did have to do more then making the most marketed and marketable faction in the game less boy's club would be neat.
To be fair, GW already addressed this to a lesser extent with their GSC range and, more prominently, with SoB. They are very much trying to establish sisters as the new "postergirls", for lack of a better term, shoulder to shoulder with marines. It's been there from the Indomitus animation and has continued since with increased BL and model support, even a pseudo primarch/chapter master character coming up in the near future. Don't you feel this is sufficient to satisfy both columns A and B?
I mean it is, but 50% of the model releases for 40k are space marines, so you'd literally have to make every other model for every other faction from now on a woman to come close to parity, lol.
Not really. I don't deny that SoB have seen a marketing push but even still they don't hold a candle (hehe cos church) to SM. We've only had the main codex, DW, BA, SW, and DA as codexes/supplements and there still needs to be updates for RG, UM, IF, IH, and WS.
The biggest problem is just by sheer weight of kits and units SM outclass any other army attempting to take away it's spot of poster faction and I think that is the crux of the matter. It wouldn't matter if GW updated the Guard and Craftworlds lines to include more diverse models because in between those there will be huge releases for SM.
Gert wrote: Not really. I don't deny that SoB have seen a marketing push but even still they don't hold a candle (hehe cos church) to SM. We've only had the main codex, DW, BA, SW, and DA as codexes/supplements and there still needs to be updates for RG, UM, IF, IH, and WS.
The biggest problem is just by sheer weight of kits and units SM outclass any other army attempting to take away it's spot of poster faction and I think that is the crux of the matter. It wouldn't matter if GW updated the Guard and Craftworlds lines to include more diverse models because in between those there will be huge releases for SM.
Wow what a great pun... truly amazing, you may want to buy a indulgency for that pun though.
The core problem of 40k is SM are so prevalent that they singlehandedly curb any opportunity for other factions to shine or even have a place.
See the SoB window panels and the cultists on them? yeah those, they don't even have an army anymore.
You don't solve that issue that the hobby has by including female SM, you solve it by finally bringing other factions up to snuff, guard, f.e. Chaos as a whole and not just spikey marines f.e. The craftworld line etc...
The thing is I'm like 90% sure I did say that at some point but this thread is 14 pages long and has gone on for about a month. I do confess that the pun was entirely by accident.
So to dispel any confusion. Absolutely update the old models and when that's done, start looking at how they can introduce more diversity to the main poster faction to make the hobby more welcoming to certain groups. In the meantime keep with the diverse cast in novels/animations/art.
Animus wrote: Sure, but they don't have the ability to spread gender memes powerful enough to override their basic instincts.
Again, there's not biggoted monkey dad's making sure there sons aren't sissies.
So according to science, wheeled toys are masculine and plush toys are feminine. That's what I learned from that article.
If changing SoB to include men would make the game easier for certain groups of people to be able to join and engage with the hobby sure go for it.
Despite otherwise agreeing with many if not all of Gert's points in this thread, I have to disagree with this. Frateris Militia would be a great addition but adding literal Misters of Battle would be harmful and the only groups it would make easier to join and engage in the hobby are the already over-represented group within it. However! I think it would be very interesting (but not 100% sure how it would really be implemented modelwise? It would probably be something to happen in a Black Library novel or an animation) to include trans people in the Sisters of Battle.
It honestly is probably better off for us to never know how the Imperium handles trans people because it will probably be handled horribly...
The explanation in terms of lore would be pretty simple.
Your physical features aren't determined by your chromosomes: you can have masculine traits with an XX, or feminine ones with a XY (there are some studies yet still inconclusive that correlate it with testosteron level - there's interesting sports medicine research on thst).
The reatment to become a Space Marine impacts Initiate brutally: it's not a stretch of imagination that Initiates are both make and female, and the transformation in Space Marine make them apparently all male (whatever their genes). Dante may be a gal, for what we know.
Crawl new treatment is either less impactful or simply different, and we can have female Primaris.
Animus wrote: Sure, but they don't have the ability to spread gender memes powerful enough to override their basic instincts.
Again, there's not biggoted monkey dad's making sure there sons aren't sissies.
So according to science, wheeled toys are masculine and plush toys are feminine. That's what I learned from that article.
Well yeah, it's a rare boy in my experience who had no interested in trucks.
Here's another paper that says Toy preference based on gender has already developed to some extent by nine months.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/icd.1986 And here's a whole meta review that looks at a number of studies.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-01624-7 I think it's a bit silly to believe culture has nothing to do with the biology that creates it.
Animus wrote: Sure, but they don't have the ability to spread gender memes powerful enough to override their basic instincts.
Again, there's not biggoted monkey dad's making sure there sons aren't sissies.
So according to science, wheeled toys are masculine and plush toys are feminine. That's what I learned from that article.
Well yeah, it's a rare boy in my experience who had no interested in trucks.
Here's another paper that says Toy preference based on gender has already developed to some extent by nine months.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/icd.1986 And here's a whole meta review that looks at a number of studies.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-01624-7 I think it's a bit silly to believe culture has nothing to do with the biology that creates it.
Both boys and girls showed a trend for an increasing preference with age for toys stereotyped for boys.
Very interesting paper, thanks for the link! Wonder what the implications of that, are! Hmm!
Well yeah, it's a rare boy in my experience who had no interested in trucks.
Well, of course. It's just human biology that boy hormones make them interested in trucks. Trucks, a completely natural, biological thing, that wild humans would find.
The whole biology tangent is barely relevant IMHO.
Yes men are more likely to be interested in TT games, but the keyword here is "likely". Biology factors are rarely hard rules, and women that are into TT do exist, they are a minority true, but that doesn't mean they deserve less representation (and as a minor note, here is always the male gamer that prefers to play with female characters).
That's why most AAA videogames, specially RPGs provide the option to play as female (and more recent games are even giving the option of playing with different gender characteristics by splitting them as individual traits, but that is another topic I don't want to discuss here).
And I would argue GW is well aware of that, see AoS. It is just that GW treats AoS and 40k very differently (AoS is a mostly successful gamble, 40k is the cash-cow, corporations do not mess with their cash-cows unless forced to by market forces), and things should get interesting if AoS ever surpasses 40k as GW's cash-cow.
Well, of course. It's just human biology that boy hormones make them interested in trucks. Trucks, a completely natural, biological thing, that wild humans would find.
This is, as pointed out, off topic at this point but...
Yes, I can imagine that when studying males and females raised by a society where males are generally raised in a way that supports interest/aptitude in mechanics and females are generally raised in a way that supports interest/aptitude in other things, that the females would demonstrate inferior mechanical aptitude.
Seems like we can just as much draw conclusions that it's related to society/culture as it is biology from this paper - that is to say, it doesn't say anything interesting.
Is it too much to ask for these studies to include trans people in them as well? There's some data points that may be half-interesting.
Rihgu wrote: This is, as pointed out, off topic at this point but...
Yes, I can imagine that when studying males and females raised by a society
But again, we have babies incapable of speech or walking, and monkeys demonstrating that the males have greater interest in these things without society intervening.
How do you think society came to the conclusion that boys liked trucks in the first place?
What do you think is more likely?
1) There's a cabal that decided for no real reason that boys should like trucks more than girls
or
2) Generally boys like trucks more than girls do
If you picked one, then can you tell me how they convinced the monkeys and babies to go along with their plan?
Rihgu wrote: We're talking about the paper than demonstrates the respective mechanical aptitudes of college aged males and females, are we not?
I'm going to go with option 3, though, as it's actually supported by the papers you linked.
3) Generally boys reject non-trucks more than girls do.
No, we're talking about all the papers so far, that one was really just me pondering why males liked trucks better than females and having a bit of backing so I wasn't called sexist for imagining it had something to do with the generally superior mechanical aptitude in men.
So are you willing to admit there are general biological gender biases present here?
Rihgu wrote: We're talking about the paper than demonstrates the respective mechanical aptitudes of college aged males and females, are we not?
I'm going to go with option 3, though, as it's actually supported by the papers you linked.
3) Generally boys reject non-trucks more than girls do.
No, we're talking about all the papers so far, that one was really just me pondering why males liked trucks better than females and having a bit of backing so I wasn't called sexist for imagining it had something to do with the generally superior mechanical aptitude in men.
So are you willing to admit there are general biological gender biases present here?
If you mean biological sex, then yes, I guess so. Seems biological males have a tendency to take earlier interest in... wheeled toys, specifically, and are more likely to reject... non wheeled toys. Over time, biological females have a general tendency to take more specific interest in... wheeled toys. Can't tell from the papers presented whether they become more likely to reject non-wheeled toys.
So, we have biological males, who we can say are generally more biologically prone to rigidity. For the purposes of resisting Chaos, this could be seen as a preferable trait, but since Sisters of Battle are shown to be extremely resistant to Chaos and are an entire biologically female subsection of population, we can't say that it's significant.
However, the general flexibility of biological females, taking no particular preference, does seem to be good for combat scenarios which often require flexibility more that rigidity.
If we use the video game Space Marine as an analogy, Leandros seems more generally biologically male, and Titus seems more biologically female.
Rihgu wrote: This is, as pointed out, off topic at this point but...
Yes, I can imagine that when studying males and females raised by a society
But again, we have babies incapable of speech or walking, and monkeys demonstrating that the males have greater interest in these things without society intervening.
How do you think society came to the conclusion that boys liked trucks in the first place?
What do you think is more likely?
1) There's a cabal that decided for no real reason that boys should like trucks more than girls
or
2) Generally boys like trucks more than girls do
If you picked one, then can you tell me how they convinced the monkeys and babies to go along with their plan?
1 is true, actually. Big conglomerate toy makers like to section off its toys for marketing purposes and will actually act with hostility to the point of cancellation if toys made for one gender become too popular with the other (this is what got the original Teen Titans cancelled, it was a boy show and was supposed to market toys for boys but it got too popular with girls).
What do you think is more likely?
1) There's a cabal that decided for no real reason that boys should like trucks more than girls
or
2) Generally boys like trucks more than girls do
If you picked one, then can you tell me how they convinced the monkeys and babies to go along with their plan?
Just to be clear, your contention is that... *breathes deeply*
...since interest in toys and play is biologically determinate, rather than a product of learned social role scaffolding acting on infant neuroplasticity...
...thus options in gendered play should not be offered to humans...
...because those humans are just like every other primate.
*whispers* biotruths...
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's a bit daft, isn't it?
Seems like a lot of work getting to the punchline, is all.
I'm almost afraid of the types of replies we'd get in this thread if I asked, well, what about the boys that want female space marines.
Considering the fox newsy excuses that keep getting repeated and the absolutely insane reaching I'm seeing some people go for so that they can be against a hypothetical situation, I imagine many would end up getting removed by mods.
SpikeyBits wrote: I find that the Sisters of Battle and the Silent Sisters add a bit of mysticism to the game. From a purely male-centric view having a more limited class(es) of female fighters makes their contributions more significant and allows for richer and deeper story telling. Throwing them into the grinder with all the other male classes would dilute this. I would be against it
Except there are mono gender regiments of IG who are fed into the grinder as much of their male counterparts. In fact, it's implied and outright stated that the majority of mixed gender regiments exist because two regiments--one male and one female--were so devastated that it's easier for the Imperium to combine them--or one regiment was so depleted that they recruited from any locals who wanted to fight, regardless of the gender on either end.
But I guess since GW doesn't actually make any female IG troops, we can ignore that too?
SoB have been in the setting since the 90's. Apart from the current push, do you know how much 'rich and deep' storytelling GW gave them? They had two mediocre BL books, a comic, and their most significant contribution was to be slaughtered for daemonic sun tan lotion for Grey Knights. Sisters of Silence popped into existence in the Horus Heresy novels, which are also fairly recent. SoB were the punching bag for BL and lore writers for decades.
BertBert wrote: Can we have misters of battle, too? What would be the harm in that?
As stated previously, not really anything. It wouldn't add much, because men are already far more represented in the setting than women. However, I'd like to point out that the Sisters of Battle can include more men in their battle line-up than the rest of the Imperial forces can include women in theirs, combined. So it's a bit disingenuous to imply that both issues are equal especially since you can count the factions that offer more than three female options on one hand and still have fingers left over.
Nobody has answered the question in any meaningful way as to; why you'd want female space marines instead of a new female centric flagship faction or SOB taking the spotlight on its own merit.. Other then "coz its easier"
This despite the fact that if you did do this, you'd alienate the biggest current participating demographic IF we apply the standard of representation. After all if boys can no longer see themselves in space marines they'd not want to play right ? right? riiight? But they don't matter because reasons.. Isn't it ironic...
So it like a zero sum game of ruining a thing a lot of people enjoy for the sake of SOME people that MIGHT enjoy int he furute despite data showing this is UNLIKELY.
After all all GW needs to do is switch its marketing and we will have the magical equality utopia right ? Right? Riight?
All female sisters of battle are fine, all male space marines are bad, and "misters of battle" would also not be ok.. all at the same time? Its so stupid.. The amount of double think is just staggering..
Its lazy activism and agenda pushing, that nobody cares about; outside of some regions of America and the west where people stopped being able to tell what objective reality is...
Nobody gives a crap if you want to GS boobs to your marines or give them female heads...
And to answer a question from earlier, why would I have this discussion in my club while gaming night is on, and demand people explain themselves and their army choices?
That's idiotic. People are there to play games and not talk about politics or sociology.
Id rather be discussing why Blood Angels dont make sense as they were all wiped out, and what on earth are the tyranids up to and also why did nobody threw up a stink about wolves having psykers after nikea which he wolves themselves wanted..
40k has a lot of issues. Poor balance, terrible business model of ever expanding pile of rotating books behind a paywall and abysmal model support.
Representation really isn't one of them unless you set out specifically to make it an issue...
At no point have myself or anyone else opposed more diversity in 40k. Learn to read. If you want more female models in 40k and GW wants to make, I don't care I don't think anybody normal cares. Heck I might buy some myself if they are any good. But you are talking about tearing down something people enjoy out of spite and selfish laziness..
For the record I couldn't give less of a toss about marines. Dont own any dont care. Id ratehr there be much less marines being made and more plastic eldar and guard.
The issue is this exact thing happens in every conceivable sphere of entertainment where communities capitulate to shut people up... But it never ends and it becomes the sole objective of the medium.. resulting in much lower quality and creativity being censored.
How have people not caught on this con ideology is astonishing. If you want change, create parallel structures. Don't try to take over and destroy things. Building is a lot harder than destroying. So get to work.
Catulle wrote: Just to be clear, your contention is that... *breathes deeply*
...since interest in toys and play is biologically determinate, rather than a product of learned social role scaffolding acting on infant neuroplasticity...
...thus options in gendered play should not be offered to humans...
...because those humans are just like every other primate.
*whispers* biotruths...
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's a bit daft, isn't it?
Seems like a lot of work getting to the punchline, is all.
No, frankly this is a tangent from when a couple of people were mistaken and said biology played no role in the types of toy and play men and women generally liked. I've never been against options for boys or girls to play with whatever toys they want.
I suppose I could relate it to the fact that I don't believe there are hordes of women waiting to break into wargaming but they're being held back by a lack of female space marines. I don't think women are
interested in wargames compared to men proportionately, and I think those who are genuinely interested wouldn't be so easily put off.
Catulle wrote: Just to be clear, your contention is that... *breathes deeply*
...since interest in toys and play is biologically determinate, rather than a product of learned social role scaffolding acting on infant neuroplasticity...
...thus options in gendered play should not be offered to humans...
...because those humans are just like every other primate.
*whispers* biotruths...
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's a bit daft, isn't it?
Seems like a lot of work getting to the punchline, is all.
No, frankly this is a tangent from when a couple of people were mistaken and said biology played no role in the types of toy and play men and women generally liked. I've never been against options for boys or girls to play with whatever toys they want.
I suppose I could relate it to the fact that I don't believe there are hordes of women waiting to break into wargaming but they're being held back by a lack of female space marines. I don't think women are
interested in wargames compared to men proportionately, and I think those who are genuinely interested wouldn't be so easily put off.
Also warhamer 40k is a far cry from being the only miniature range or game out there.
There's is something for everyone I think in the general hobby of miniatures and wargaming. .
Altima wrote: I'm almost afraid of the types of replies we'd get in this thread if I asked, well, what about the boys that want female space marines.
Considering the fox newsy excuses that keep getting repeated and the absolutely insane reaching I'm seeing some people go for so that they can be against a hypothetical situation, I imagine many would end up getting removed by mods.
I kind of wish they would on the basis that at least that *might* be honest.
The Clavin's treehouse NoGiRlz allowed nonsense is at least clearly nonsense.
Catulle wrote: Just to be clear, your contention is that... *breathes deeply*
...since interest in toys and play is biologically determinate, rather than a product of learned social role scaffolding acting on infant neuroplasticity...
...thus options in gendered play should not be offered to humans...
...because those humans are just like every other primate.
*whispers* biotruths...
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's a bit daft, isn't it?
Seems like a lot of work getting to the punchline, is all.
No, frankly this is a tangent from when a couple of people were mistaken and said biology played no role in the types of toy and play men and women generally liked. I've never been against options for boys or girls to play with whatever toys they want.
I suppose I could relate it to the fact that I don't believe there are hordes of women waiting to break into wargaming but they're being held back by a lack of female space marines. I don't think women are
interested in wargames compared to men proportionately, and I think those who are genuinely interested wouldn't be so easily put off.
Also warhamer 40k is a far cry from being the only miniature range or game out there.
There's is something for everyone I think in the general hobby of miniatures and wargaming. .
*yawn*
Boring, Arch-sponsored Gatekeeping bollocks.
Honestly, if your answer to "how can we do better inclusion?" Is "Go find another game"...
No idea what arch sponsored means.. But sure Ill keep my gate because I have a spine and I don't negotiate with terrorists
Maybe you will not be missed if you go find another game if 40k Male only space marines offends you so much?
I'm just offering solutions a sane person would see as reasonable. Why expose yourself to something that you find offensive or not inclusive and then complain about it being offensive and non inclusive??
You find something else or you create something else. You don't try bully people into your way of thinking...
UNLES its just a self serving way of trying to exert power and influence so you can feel better about being validated at having bullied people to get your way?
Argive wrote: Maybe you will not be missed if you go find another game if 40k Male only space marines offends you so much?
I'm just offering solutions a sane person would see as reasonable. Why expose yourself to something that you find offensive or not inclusive and then complain about it being offensive and non inclusive??
You find something else or you create something else. You don't try bully people into your way of thinking...
UNLES its just a self serving way of trying to exert power and influence so you can feel better about being validated at having bullied people to get your way?
Food for thought.
"I want the hobby I enjoy to be more inclusive and representative of people," is bullying now?
Argive wrote: Maybe you will not be missed if you go find another game if 40k Male only space marines offends you so much?
I'm just offering solutions a sane person would see as reasonable. Why expose yourself to something that you find offensive or not inclusive and then complain about it being offensive and non inclusive??
You find something else or you create something else. You don't try bully people into your way of thinking...
UNLES its just a self serving way of trying to exert power and influence so you can feel better about being validated at having bullied people to get your way?
Food for thought.
"I want the hobby I enjoy to be more inclusive and representative of people," is bullying now?
No, saying you are a bad person if you don't jump when I say jump and change the whole game for me because I say so is bullying..
The issue is not with diversity. The issue is with how people are trying to achieve it. Read my post previously I think I explained that well. .
Argive wrote: Maybe you will not be missed if you go find another game if 40k Male only space marines offends you so much?
I'm just offering solutions a sane person would see as reasonable. Why expose yourself to something that you find offensive or not inclusive and then complain about it being offensive and non inclusive??
You find something else or you create something else. You don't try bully people into your way of thinking...
UNLES its just a self serving way of trying to exert power and influence so you can feel better about being validated at having bullied people to get your way?
Food for thought.
"I want the hobby I enjoy to be more inclusive and representative of people," is bullying now?
No, saying you are a bad person if you don't jump when I say jump and change the whole game for me is bullying..
So, changing a singular faction (if the most overrepresented faction) to include women is changing the whole game?
It's still IGOUGO. It's still a wartorn hellscape the likes of which would shock anyone who was transported there. It's still got Bolters and Chainswords and Orks and Eldar and Necrons. It's not even really a fundamental change to Marines-they're indoctrinated killing machines, warrior monks, and the elite of the Imperium. None of those concepts require you to be a man.
Argive wrote: Maybe you will not be missed if you go find another game if 40k Male only space marines offends you so much?
I'm just offering solutions a sane person would see as reasonable. Why expose yourself to something that you find offensive or not inclusive and then complain about it being offensive and non inclusive??
You find something else or you create something else. You don't try bully people into your way of thinking...
UNLES its just a self serving way of trying to exert power and influence so you can feel better about being validated at having bullied people to get your way?
Food for thought.
"I want the hobby I enjoy to be more inclusive and representative of people," is bullying now?
No, saying you are a bad person if you don't jump when I say jump and change the whole game for me is bullying..
So, changing a singular faction (if the most overrepresented faction) to include women is changing the whole game?
It's still IGOUGO. It's still a wartorn hellscape the likes of which would shock anyone who was transported there. It's still got Bolters and Chainswords and Orks and Eldar and Necrons. It's not even really a fundamental change to Marines-they're indoctrinated killing machines, warrior monks, and the elite of the Imperium. None of those concepts require you to be a man.
Yes 40k has many problems. Game system chief among them.. Representation should be far down the list of priorities if the base game is garbage and the busines model sucks and makes it inaccessible to EVERYONE due to book prices and model prices...
Yes. Its changing the essense of 35+ year old lore. So yes... Is it perfect? No. It just is. But thousands if not millions of people have enjoyed it over the last 35 years. And I don't want that to be thrown in the garbage because someone's feelings are not recognised NOW. This ideology never stops and it never ends and it the end it stifles creativity and quality if you give in and its utopian garage not based in reality.
If you don't think this will end with "misters of battle" and she-orks I have a bridge to sell you.
Argive wrote: Maybe you will not be missed if you go find another game if 40k Male only space marines offends you so much?
I'm just offering solutions a sane person would see as reasonable. Why expose yourself to something that you find offensive or not inclusive and then complain about it being offensive and non inclusive??
You find something else or you create something else. You don't try bully people into your way of thinking...
UNLES its just a self serving way of trying to exert power and influence so you can feel better about being validated at having bullied people to get your way?
Food for thought.
"I want the hobby I enjoy to be more inclusive and representative of people," is bullying now?
No, saying you are a bad person if you don't jump when I say jump and change the whole game for me because I say so is bullying..
The issue is not with diversity. The issue is with how people are trying to achieve it. Read my post previously I think I explained that well. .
If you don't disagree with diversity, then why one earth are jumping get through these complex hoops to protect the precious from that vile *feminist* influence? You *like* diversity, right?
Argive wrote: Maybe you will not be missed if you go find another game if 40k Male only space marines offends you so much?
I'm just offering solutions a sane person would see as reasonable. Why expose yourself to something that you find offensive or not inclusive and then complain about it being offensive and non inclusive??
You find something else or you create something else. You don't try bully people into your way of thinking...
UNLES its just a self serving way of trying to exert power and influence so you can feel better about being validated at having bullied people to get your way?
Food for thought.
"I want the hobby I enjoy to be more inclusive and representative of people," is bullying now?
No, saying you are a bad person if you don't jump when I say jump and change the whole game for me because I say so is bullying..
The issue is not with diversity. The issue is with how people are trying to achieve it. Read my post previously I think I explained that well. .
If you don't disagree with diversity, then why one earth are jumping get through these complex hoops to protect the precious from that vile *feminist* influence? You *like* diversity, right?
I disagree with ruining a thing for the many to satisfy narcisstic selfish validation of the few.
Argive wrote: Maybe you will not be missed if you go find another game if 40k Male only space marines offends you so much?
I'm just offering solutions a sane person would see as reasonable. Why expose yourself to something that you find offensive or not inclusive and then complain about it being offensive and non inclusive??
You find something else or you create something else. You don't try bully people into your way of thinking...
UNLES its just a self serving way of trying to exert power and influence so you can feel better about being validated at having bullied people to get your way?
Food for thought.
"I want the hobby I enjoy to be more inclusive and representative of people," is bullying now?
No, saying you are a bad person if you don't jump when I say jump and change the whole game for me because I say so is bullying..
The issue is not with diversity. The issue is with how people are trying to achieve it. Read my post previously I think I explained that well. .
If you don't disagree with diversity, then why one earth are jumping get through these complex hoops to protect the precious from that vile *feminist* influence? You *like* diversity, right?
I disagree with ruining a thing for the many to satisfy narcisstic selfish validation of the few.
Why would female Space Marines ruin 40k? What part of "Hypno-Indoctrinated weapon of murder" or "Warrior-Monk" or "Elite of the Imperium" requires you to be a man?
Cool. Are you actually professing ignorance of Arch's white supremacist opus here? To be clear, because I see a lot of his talking points in your post and if you want to distance yourself from that(with clarityy and distance if you can maybe be linked to it in the past) now would be the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: I disagree with ruining a thing for the many to satisfy narcisstic selfish validation of the few.
Argive wrote: Maybe you will not be missed if you go find another game if 40k Male only space marines offends you so much?
I'm just offering solutions a sane person would see as reasonable. Why expose yourself to something that you find offensive or not inclusive and then complain about it being offensive and non inclusive??
You find something else or you create something else. You don't try bully people into your way of thinking...
UNLES its just a self serving way of trying to exert power and influence so you can feel better about being validated at having bullied people to get your way?
Food for thought.
"I want the hobby I enjoy to be more inclusive and representative of people," is bullying now?
No, saying you are a bad person if you don't jump when I say jump and change the whole game for me because I say so is bullying..
The issue is not with diversity. The issue is with how people are trying to achieve it. Read my post previously I think I explained that well. .
If you don't disagree with diversity, then why one earth are jumping get through these complex hoops to protect the precious from that vile *feminist* influence? You *like* diversity, right?
I disagree with ruining a thing for the many to satisfy narcisstic selfish validation of the few.
So you disagree with diversity because you don't like anyone who is a minority being validated because they're the minority? That.... doesn't... seem.... okay. At all
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Empire uber alles, I suppose..." - a Fascist spanker
Argive wrote: Maybe you will not be missed if you go find another game if 40k Male only space marines offends you so much?
I'm just offering solutions a sane person would see as reasonable. Why expose yourself to something that you find offensive or not inclusive and then complain about it being offensive and non inclusive??
You find something else or you create something else. You don't try bully people into your way of thinking...
UNLES its just a self serving way of trying to exert power and influence so you can feel better about being validated at having bullied people to get your way?
Food for thought.
"I want the hobby I enjoy to be more inclusive and representative of people," is bullying now?
No, saying you are a bad person if you don't jump when I say jump and change the whole game for me because I say so is bullying..
The issue is not with diversity. The issue is with how people are trying to achieve it. Read my post previously I think I explained that well. .
If you don't disagree with diversity, then why one earth are jumping get through these complex hoops to protect the precious from that vile *feminist* influence? You *like* diversity, right?
I disagree with ruining a thing for the many to satisfy narcisstic selfish validation of the few.
Why would female Space Marines ruin 40k? What part of "Hypno-Indoctrinated weapon of murder" or "Warrior-Monk" or "Elite of the Imperium" requires you to be a man?
Do we have to go through this rigamarole again?
In reality men are physically bigger because genetics, testosterone hormones etc etc which has been an internal logic of the setting since SM were created.
Its not reflective but its routed in human biology and real world physics (yes yes the warp is the warp)
And im not saying it would ruin 40k. I'm saying It would ruin 40k for a lot of space marine fan and WH40k fans.. Who would be unhappy with changing long established internal logic, and lore to satisfy some vocal minority interest group without caring about how much time effort, and money they have invested building the hobby up.
And if you ask me why people need their dudes only SM? Its the same reason people want female only SOB.. Its just what they want. I don't see how one is any different from the other, unless you assign it arbitrary value of "men bad"
Which is an abhorrent sexist view.
It comes back around to why are female only SOB ok but male only SM not okay and are somehow problematic?
Follow this logic to its conclusion and the result is she-orks and "misters of battle" because at its core this idea never ends and there is always someone oppressed and unrepresented so you force changes to fit that agenda and not for the sake of setting or story telling.
A lot of people are not interested in balance or diversity nor interested in building a better community. I think there are plenty bad actors who use this ideology to try and destroy something they perceive as bad. I.E. Wh40k = SM, SM is full of men so that's bad simply because its full of men = 40k Bd.
I think this is becoming a very circular argument if people are not willing to accept the there is a sepcific agenda on the the demand of female space marines. And that agenda has very little about making current players happy.
Trying to hammer home the fact that people are only interested in things that look like them is very insulting to tyranid players
The issue is, as has been pointed out, Sisters of Battle can field more men in their army than the rest of the Imperium can field women. (Excepting if you go for Victoria Miniatures for your IG or something, but then you can't play in an actual GW store.) There's not even anything vaguely close to equal representation. And the most natural place to address that is a faction that combines large presence in the fluff with minimal model adjustments needed-I don't think Marines need a gakload more models or anything, but an upgrade sprue with unhelmeted female heads and an announcement of a lore change would help provide equal representation.
Catulle wrote: Cool. Are you actually professing ignorance of Arch's white supremacist opus here? To be clear, because I see a lot of his talking points in your post and if you want to distance yourself from that(with clarityy and distance if you can maybe be linked to it in the past) now would be the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: I disagree with ruining a thing for the many to satisfy narcisstic selfish validation of the few.
Argive wrote: Maybe you will not be missed if you go find another game if 40k Male only space marines offends you so much?
I'm just offering solutions a sane person would see as reasonable. Why expose yourself to something that you find offensive or not inclusive and then complain about it being offensive and non inclusive??
You find something else or you create something else. You don't try bully people into your way of thinking...
UNLES its just a self serving way of trying to exert power and influence so you can feel better about being validated at having bullied people to get your way?
Food for thought.
"I want the hobby I enjoy to be more inclusive and representative of people," is bullying now?
No, saying you are a bad person if you don't jump when I say jump and change the whole game for me because I say so is bullying..
The issue is not with diversity. The issue is with how people are trying to achieve it. Read my post previously I think I explained that well. .
If you don't disagree with diversity, then why one earth are jumping get through these complex hoops to protect the precious from that vile *feminist* influence? You *like* diversity, right?
I disagree with ruining a thing for the many to satisfy narcisstic selfish validation of the few.
So you disagree with diversity because you don't like anyone who is a minority being validated because they're the minority? That.... doesn't... seem.... okay. At all
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Empire uber alles, I suppose..." - a Fascist spanker
No I think anyone that doesn't value themselves until they have a plastic miniature that looks like them, has bigger problems then lack of miniature that looks like them.
I don't think you are getting what I'm putting down.
Argive wrote: I disagree with ruining a thing for the many to satisfy narcisstic selfish validation of the few.
Good grief, wouldn't if just be awful if we ruined a thing for the majority of humanity by trying get to preserve it for a horrible, selfish, narcissistic and attenuated stump of humanity that was dedicated gatekeeper wargamers... that would *suck* it would be just roll get over to a narcissistic, selfish rump of humani... the hobby. It might... never... grow AGAIN.
The issue is, as has been pointed out, Sisters of Battle can field more men in their army than the rest of the Imperium can field women. (Excepting if you go for Victoria Miniatures for your IG or something, but then you can't play in an actual GW store.) There's not even anything vaguely close to equal representation. And the most natural place to address that is a faction that combines large presence in the fluff with minimal model adjustments needed-I don't think Marines need a gakload more models or anything, but an upgrade sprue with unhelmeted female heads and an announcement of a lore change would help provide equal representation.
Equal representation of what? The hobby customers? The player base? Would new plastic female models for guard or Eldar not be better for wh40k?
Its fairly simple; Its has to be SM if you have an agenda which is not positively disposed towards 40k.
Argive wrote: I disagree with ruining a thing for the many to satisfy narcisstic selfish validation of the few.
Good grief, wouldn't if just be awful if we ruined a thing for the majority of humanity by trying get to preserve it for a horrible, selfish, narcissistic and attenuated stump of humanity that was dedicated gatekeeper wargamers... that would *suck* it would be just roll get over to a narcissistic, selfish rump of humani... the hobby. It might... never... grow AGAIN.
Nah, no gurlz allowed.
*dies*
That's sad.. That was completely incoherent. I wish you has something to add to the discussion, I would like to hear it.
Catulle wrote: Cool. Are you actually professing ignorance of Arch's white supremacist opus here? To be clear, because I see a lot of his talking points in your post and if you want to distance yourself from that(with clarityy and distance if you can maybe be linked to it in the past) now would be the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: I disagree with ruining a thing for the many to satisfy narcisstic selfish validation of the few.
Argive wrote: Maybe you will not be missed if you go find another game if 40k Male only space marines offends you so much?
I'm just offering solutions a sane person would see as reasonable. Why expose yourself to something that you find offensive or not inclusive and then complain about it being offensive and non inclusive??
You find something else or you create something else. You don't try bully people into your way of thinking...
UNLES its just a self serving way of trying to exert power and influence so you can feel better about being validated at having bullied people to get your way?
Food for thought.
"I want the hobby I enjoy to be more inclusive and representative of people," is bullying now?
No, saying you are a bad person if you don't jump when I say jump and change the whole game for me because I say so is bullying..
The issue is not with diversity. The issue is with how people are trying to achieve it. Read my post previously I think I explained that well. .
If you don't disagree with diversity, then why one earth are jumping get through these complex hoops to protect the precious from that vile *feminist* influence? You *like* diversity, right?
I disagree with ruining a thing for the many to satisfy narcisstic selfish validation of the few.
So you disagree with diversity because you don't like anyone who is a minority being validated because they're the minority? That.... doesn't... seem.... okay. At all
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Empire uber alles, I suppose..." - a Fascist spanker
No I think anyone that doesn't value themselves until they have a plastic miniature that looks like them, has bigger problems then lack of miniature that looks like them.
I don't think you are getting what I'm putting down.
Heh.
I know precisely what you're putting down, and It's terrible exclusive sexist-tinged rubbish. You've yet to explain how you "disagree with ruining a thing for the many to satisfy narcisstic selfish validation of the few." when that thing is neither ruined nor vaguely narcissistic (see above) or to defend your position from the utterly exclusionary points unto which you have embedded yourself.
Nobody has answered the question in any meaningful way as to; why you'd want female space marines instead of a new female centric flagship faction or SOB taking the spotlight on its own merit.. Other then "coz its easier"
Because I don't think anybody wants a "female centric flagship faction". They want a flagship faction with equal representation.
This despite the fact that if you did do this, you'd alienate the biggest current participating demographic IF we apply the standard of representation. After all if boys can no longer see themselves in space marines they'd not want to play right ? right? riiight?
But they don't matter because reasons.. Isn't it ironic...
But men will still see themselves in space marines because some are still male. In fact most likely will remain male. They are still going to remain adequately represented in the flagship faction.
So it like a zero sum game of ruining a thing a lot of people enjoy for the sake of SOME people that MIGHT enjoy int he furute despite data showing this is UNLIKELY.
After all all GW needs to do is switch its marketing and we will have the magical equality utopia right ? Right? Riight?
Why would you consider this ruining this thing? Especially if you still have your bro force represented however you wish; recruitment is generally up to the chapter anyways. You can have a boys only club for whatever reasons you wish. And we get the owner of the IP putting a layer of protection up for those that wish to model female Astartes. So they can stop getting death threats whenever they do so in online forums. It won’t be an overnight sensation; enough females have seen the hostility that the audacity to dare to model the faction that hogs the spotlight with female representation takes from the community and have learned that tabletop wargaming is a man’s world that such a thing would take time. We need to set the precedent that this is not true before the healing can begin.
All female sisters of battle are fine, all male space marines are bad, and "misters of battle" would also not be ok.. all at the same time? Its so stupid.. The amount of double think is just staggering..
Those that made the claim that male sisters of battle are bad are a minority. Most have conceded that point because a) that is hardly what we are talking about b) they don’t believe it changes things much. Especially considering the amount of people playing marines vs them, and the fact that sisters of battle armies very much can include male models anyways. And c) such a blatant and toxic usage of a “what aboutism” argument that adds little to the discussion, and is intended for the sole purpose of neutering a discussion intended to make the hobby more inclusive to all genders.
Nobody gives a crap if you want to GS boobs to your marines or give them female heads...
Except the death threats and vitriol such conversions have historically drawn have empirically and emphatically proven this statement false. Several commenters have Discussed and furnished proof that you are wrong and this sort of comment is exactly what allows that vitriol and toxicity to thrive. Also saying that the problems a group of people have (that you probably don’t interface with and have demonstrated a remarkable disconnect with) don’t exist proves that you are framing this within your personal experience and your personal frame of reference and are consciously dictating that this frame that disenfranchises the experiences of another gender group.
That's idiotic. People are there to play games and not talk about politics or sociology.
Id rather be discussing why Blood Angels dont make sense as they were all wiped out, and what on earth are the tyranids up to and also why did nobody threw up a stink about wolves having psykers after nikea which he wolves themselves wanted..
And yet here you are, making your voice heard, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I am of the opinion that these conversations need to be had and folks like you need to engage with it. As do folk like the Scotsman and those that have probably drawn negative thoughts or emotions from you. It has utility in of itself.
40k has a lot of issues. Poor balance, terrible business model of ever expanding pile of rotating books behind a paywall and abysmal model support.
Representation really isn't one of them unless you set out specifically to make it an issue...
There seems to be a trend in anecdotal evidence on this thread and across the internet that AOS has more female players than 40K. Still not equal in gender demographics of player base, but that is far from the goal. Anyways, Their Sigmarines, or Sigmar equivalent of Marines, have females hopped up on AOS equivalent of gene seed. They also have significantly more factions and lore that holds up better to the Bechdal test. By my brief approach to the lore. 40k performs fairly abysmally in that test. I will gracefully accept (hopefully constructive and not toxic in nature) criticism from the other folks on here. These trends and differences though strongly support the argument we are making, that female representation in marines is the easiest, quickest, and most effective way to open the hobby up to all genders. Or, a restatement of that claim that is more directly linked to this discussion, it would make the hobby more attractive to more genders, and remove social and psychological barriers that deflect such potential barriers.
At no point have myself or anyone else opposed more diversity in 40k. Learn to read. If you want more female models in 40k and GW wants to make, I don't care I don't think anybody normal cares. Heck I might buy some myself if they are any good.
But you are talking about tearing down something people enjoy out of spite and selfish laziness..
This is not based in spite. The argument is also that this would not tear down what you love; why is the linchpin upon which your love of this setting have to be that space marines are a boy’s only club?
For the record I couldn't give less of a toss about marines. Dont own any dont care. Id ratehr there be much less marines being made and more plastic eldar and guard.
By god the only people that could agree with you more are those that actually do collect space marines... the statements have even been made by those that would like to see female space marines that they would prefer any applicable releases to help this hypothetical fluff meet the tabletop wait until everyone else is up to date as well...
The issue is this exact thing happens in every conceivable sphere of entertainment where communities capitulate to shut people up... But it never ends and it becomes the sole objective of the medium.. resulting in much lower quality and creativity being censored.
You mean like how people love to shut female space marine converters up and censor them whenever they dare to post their creativity online... the issue we are trying to address.
How have people not caught on this con ideology is astonishing.
If you want change, create parallel structures. Don't try to take over and destroy things. Building is a lot harder than destroying. So get to work.
I can not address this without tying in real world politics and examples, but I really have to disagree with you here. The argument right now that keeps getting skirted is how exactly what we are discussing “destroying things?”
In reality men are physically bigger because genetics, testosterone hormones etc etc which has been an internal logic of the setting since SM were created.
When Space Marines were created, they were just convicts in power armour. Ignoring that for a moment, though, there's a couple of problems with this statement: for one, we're not talking about reality, we're talking about fantasy in space. And for two, physical size is not the sole criteria for grading the best soldier.
And im not saying it would ruin 40k. I'm saying It would ruin 40k for a lot of space marine fan and WH40k fans.. Who would be unhappy with changing long established internal logic, and lore to satisfy some vocal minority interest group without caring about how much time effort, and money they have invested building the hobby up.
Nope, you've lost me. How does the introduction of female models to the range have any effect whatsoever on the miniatures you already own?
And if you ask me why people need their dudes only SM? Its the same reason people want female only SOB.. Its just what they want.
So... if I walk into a store and the regular Coke is sitting on the shelf beside the sugarless Coke, I have no choice but to buy and drink both of them...?
Or can I just buy and drink the one that I actually like? Which, obviously, would not be the case if only one of those choices existed.
Follow this logic to its conclusion and the result is she-orks and "misters of battle" ...
Works for me.
A lot of people are not interested in balance or diversity nor interested in building a better community. I think there are plenty bad actors who use this ideology to try and destroy something they perceive as bad. I.E. Wh40k = SM, SM is full of men so that's bad simply because its full of men = 40k Bd.
And a lot of people apply faulty logic and assumptions that fit their preconceived view in order to dismiss something that they don't personally feel needs addressing.
Trying to hammer home the fact that people are only interested in things that look like them is very insulting to tyranid players
And trying to insist that this is in some way relevant to the discussion shows that you are still completely missing the point of representation.
Representation isn't about having every single thing be identical to yourself, nor has it ever been claimed that every person needs this. This is not, and has never been, what people are asking for.
Catulle wrote: Cool. Are you actually professing ignorance of Arch's white supremacist opus here? To be clear, because I see a lot of his talking points in your post and if you want to distance yourself from that(with clarityy and distance if you can maybe be linked to it in the past) now would be the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: I disagree with ruining a thing for the many to satisfy narcisstic selfish validation of the few.
Argive wrote: Maybe you will not be missed if you go find another game if 40k Male only space marines offends you so much?
I'm just offering solutions a sane person would see as reasonable. Why expose yourself to something that you find offensive or not inclusive and then complain about it being offensive and non inclusive??
You find something else or you create something else. You don't try bully people into your way of thinking...
UNLES its just a self serving way of trying to exert power and influence so you can feel better about being validated at having bullied people to get your way?
Food for thought.
"I want the hobby I enjoy to be more inclusive and representative of people," is bullying now?
No, saying you are a bad person if you don't jump when I say jump and change the whole game for me because I say so is bullying..
The issue is not with diversity. The issue is with how people are trying to achieve it. Read my post previously I think I explained that well. .
If you don't disagree with diversity, then why one earth are jumping get through these complex hoops to protect the precious from that vile *feminist* influence? You *like* diversity, right?
I disagree with ruining a thing for the many to satisfy narcisstic selfish validation of the few.
So you disagree with diversity because you don't like anyone who is a minority being validated because they're the minority? That.... doesn't... seem.... okay. At all
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Empire uber alles, I suppose..." - a Fascist spanker
No I think anyone that doesn't value themselves until they have a plastic miniature that looks like them, has bigger problems then lack of miniature that looks like them.
I don't think you are getting what I'm putting down.
Heh.
I know precisely what you're putting down, and It's terrible exclusive sexist-tinged rubbish. You've yet to explain how you "disagree with ruining a thing for the many to satisfy narcisstic selfish validation of the few." when that thing is neither ruined nor vaguely narcissistic (see above) or to defend your position from the utterly exclusionary points unto which you have embedded yourself.
Do your own dammed work, because we won't.
I already explained. If you'd actually read what I wrote instead of getting triggered and writing angry drivel perhaps you'd understand where I'm coming from.
I get your position. I do. But I think its a very bad position for the hobby and the wider ideology that's causing it is at its very core abhorrent.
Its categorising and locking women into a group without giving them agency, and determining they are so insecure they cannot be interested in plastic toy soldiers unless they look like them and therefore we have to take away stuff that looks like boys to make them feel better..
That's a terrible opinion and strategy in my opinion..
To recap:
The assumption is that "Warhammer" is excluding women because lack of female space marines - This is demonstrably untrue as we have plenty of women part of the Warhammer/wargaming community.
My assertation is that the reason for lack of females, is not lack of female SM but because women are not interested in plastic toy soldiers and making pew noises because of interest trends and tendencies born from a combination of mostly biology coupled with culture and society. WH Is a very nieche hobby that MOST MEN are not interested in
Same way lipstick is not marketed at men and boys, WH is not marketed at girls and women. Because there are "general" trends people follow. And that's been discussed to DEATH with plenty research being shown.
Ergo. FEMALE SM = MALE SOB - This obliterates 35+ year lore which people have built community around and cherish and love. Again this has been explained in more detail
So I would say if that's the case, the motivation becomes political agenda of tearing down something and other such nonsense seeking to destroy things they perceive as "bad" aka. men bad, and not really caring about the things they claim to want to help.
If someone's self worth is really derived from wither or not some plastic toy they can ignore looks like them or not, I don't think they need to be taken seriously because its a narcisstic and self absorbed outlook on life and we simply shouldn't care. This may be a shock but people are allowed to not care about people..
Its unfortunate that you cannot see this and instead choose to attack the hobby and people who have built the hobby if they don't agree with your ridiculous demands to change said hobby to fix something that isn't there to fix.
Is that clear enough for you?
And if people disagree they are welcome to disagree.
No hard feelings.
In reality men are physically bigger because genetics, testosterone hormones etc etc which has been an internal logic of the setting since SM were created.
When Space Marines were created, they were just convicts in power armour. Ignoring that for a moment, though, there's a couple of problems with this statement: for one, we're not talking about reality, we're talking about fantasy in space. And for two, physical size is not the sole criteria for grading the best soldier.
And im not saying it would ruin 40k. I'm saying It would ruin 40k for a lot of space marine fan and WH40k fans.. Who would be unhappy with changing long established internal logic, and lore to satisfy some vocal minority interest group without caring about how much time effort, and money they have invested building the hobby up.
Nope, you've lost me. How does the introduction of female models to the range have any effect whatsoever on the miniatures you already own?
1. Some players might get annoyed their favourite chapter master goes in for surgery and in the next novel becomes a female for no reason. Or they kill of his fav dude to introduce diversity. We've seen this happen in comics and that whole genre. Also some people will find it jarring and immersion breaking? I dont know im not invested in SM youd have to ask the SM players
And if you ask me why people need their dudes only SM? Its the same reason people want female only SOB.. Its just what they want.
So... if I walk into a store and the regular Coke is sitting on the shelf beside the sugarless Coke, I have no choice but to buy and drink both of them...?
Or can I just buy and drink the one that I actually like? Which, obviously, would not be the case if only one of those choices existed.
2. Wouldn't you just buy some water as its healthier?
I really don't get this.
You can make your own female marines if they are not sold and it means so much to you or you can play SOB if you want females.
There are plenty eldar sculpts that need updating in plastic which would work fine as females without wasting time on SM and giving them more sprues. Or even betetr an entirely new faction based on chicks. Like Amazons in space Id buy that crap.
Follow this logic to its conclusion and the result is she-orks and "misters of battle" ...
Works for me.
3. It works for me too. But might not work for ork players. Agains you'd have to ask them.. Or do their voices and wants don't matter for the greater good?
A lot of people are not interested in balance or diversity nor interested in building a better community. I think there are plenty bad actors who use this ideology to try and destroy something they perceive as bad. I.E. Wh40k = SM, SM is full of men so that's bad simply because its full of men = 40k Bd.
And a lot of people apply faulty logic and assumptions that fit their preconceived view in order to dismiss something that they don't personally feel needs addressing.
4. No i stand by my statement. Read the whole thread and tell me some people have zero interest in 40k Sm or warhamemr and only in making sure they kil of male only SM because its somehow bad for women.
Trying to hammer home the fact that people are only interested in things that look like them is very insulting to tyranid players
And trying to insist that this is in some way relevant to the discussion shows that you are still completely missing the point of representation.
Representation isn't about having every single thing be identical to yourself, nor has it ever been claimed that every person needs this. This is not, and has never been, what people are asking for.
5.What is it about? I've asked this many times but its always the same nebulous etherial item.
Doesn't that seem odd to you that people want change but not exactly sure what they are advocating for yet are happy to destory things other people have created or grown attached to?
Sorry I tried to do the neat quote thing but I suck at it.
If you don't understand the issue, then it's ultimately more productive to learn about the issue than to argue that it isn't, in fact, an issue.
3. It works for me too. But might not work for ork players. Agains you'd have to ask them.. Or do their voices and wants don't matter for the greater good?
I am an Ork player. They're my primary army, and have been since about 1999. Introducing female orks would have zero detrimental effect on the faction's character (they're sentient fungus. No reason they can't have male and female versions for sporing purposes, like many plants on this planet do...), and would add a whole host of character and modeling opportunities.
The whole female ork thing is still missing the point, though, because Orks are not the flagship faction for the game and its setting.
5.What is it about? I've asked this many times but its always the same nebulous etherial item.
Doesn't that seem odd to you that people want change but not exactly sure what they are advocating for yet are happy to destory things other people have created or grown attached to?
Representation has been explained multiple times. You've chosen to ignore the explanations because you consider it an unimportant, made-up issue.
I would also point out that this:
Its categorising and locking women into a group without giving them agency, and determining they are so insecure they cannot be interested in plastic toy soldiers unless they look like them and therefore we have to take away stuff that looks like boys to make them feel better..
...completely overlooks the fact that this issue hasn't arisen from nowhere. This isn't just a bunch of men assuming there is a problem on behalf of someone else... There are plenty of women out there complaining about the sexism inherent in the wargaming hobby.
And yet again: adding female models to the Space Marine range doesn't take away anything. If you want your marines to be all boys, you would still be able to do that.
Honestly for me, as long as they respect the past fluff I am cool with female marines. As said before make it so Cawl removed the limitation on primarius. Then Keep SOB as the defacto female faction, expand on the talons of the Emperor to have both men (custodian) and women (sisters of silence) and then make Grey Knights the defacto male faction as they don't do primarius anyways. That way the poster faction has both.
I already explained. If you'd actually read what I wrote instead of getting triggered and writing angry drivel perhaps you'd understand where I'm coming from.
I get your position. I do. But I think its a very bad position for the hobby and the wider ideology that's causing it is at its very core abhorrent.
Its categorising and locking women into a group without giving them agency, and determining they are so insecure they cannot be interested in plastic toy soldiers unless they look like them and therefore we have to take away stuff that looks like boys to make them feel better..
That's a terrible opinion and strategy in my opinion..
You respect women so much that you find the idea that they want better representation to be so distasteful that you'd rather they leave the hobby because if they ever got their way, it'd ruin the hobby for you, and you'd leave?
No one is talking about taking stuff away. They're talking about adding on to an existing range. Are you that insecure?
The assumption is that "Warhammer" is excluding women because lack of female space marines - This is demonstrably untrue as we have plenty of women part of the Warhammer/wargaming community.
Warhammer 40k is not inviting to women. Prior to essentially this edition, there was no marketing aimed at women and there's still very little. Sure, there are female models, but if you took every non-SoB female option from every army and put them in the same book, you *might* have a range as expansive as some of the mid tier factions--maybe 10-15% as big as the astartes.
Could GW do better? Yes. The first step is including more female representation in the actual range. Not only Eldar and Guard who are specifically mentioned as having a lot of women serving but either have laughably little or no actual options, but in the main flagship faction that, once again, makes up at least half of the hobby.
My assertation is that the reason for lack of females, is not lack of female SM but because women are not interested in plastic toy soldiers and making pew noises because of interest trends and tendencies born from a combination of mostly biology coupled with culture and society. WH Is a very nieche hobby that MOST MEN are not interested in
Women play 40k, so your assumption is incorrect. Many women play 40k. Not as many as men, but that doesn't make their wants any less valid. Of course, the big problem I'm gathering here is that if there were more women represented in the game, especially in Space Marines, then that might mean more girls might pick up the hobby.
Same way lipstick is not marketed at men and boys, WH is not marketed at girls and women. Because there are "general" trends people follow. And that's been discussed to DEATH with plenty research being shown.
And yet, I bet you go just about every day seeing a man in makeup. Let's be honest, it's not socially accepted for men/boys to be in makeup, but I'm sure some would like to wear it (and some are required to wear it for their profession) and makeup companies would love to market to a wider audience, but in a lot of western areas, a male buying makeup might draw unwanted attention. Probably for the same reason why not women feel safer in a women-only swim class.
Ergo. FEMALE SM = MALE SOB - This obliterates 35+ year lore which people have built community around and cherish and love. Again this has been explained in more detail
In what way? No one seems to be upset about the idea of male sisters of battle. Probably because the SoB army actually includes males right now. As for the lore, Games Workshop already upended the lore with Primaris, which also obliterated 35+ years of lore. Did you quit the hobby over that? Obviously not.
So I would say if that's the case, the motivation becomes political agenda of tearing down something and other such nonsense seeking to destroy things they perceive as "bad" aka. men bad, and not really caring about the things they claim to want to help.
No one is saying men bad. They're saying that women are underrepresented in the hobby, which they objectively are. Some people (of both genders) want female space marines. Some people don't care. However, there is a subset of people like yourself that are vehemently against including the option.
I mean, you can hide it behind as many poorly veiled arguments as you want, but we all know, yourself included, why you really don't.
If someone's self worth is really derived from wither or not some plastic toy they can ignore looks like them or not, I don't think they need to be taken seriously because its a narcisstic and self absorbed outlook on life and we simply shouldn't care. This may be a shock but people are allowed to not care about people..
Why is your self worth so wrapped up in a boys only astartes?
Its unfortunate that you cannot see this and instead choose to attack the hobby and people who have built the hobby if they don't agree with your ridiculous demands to change said hobby to fix something that isn't there to fix.
The only people who are attacking the hobby are the ones who say including female space marines would 'ruin' the hobby for them and are using every argument in the book from how it's disrespectful to the lore, to what about SoB, to make up marketing, to genetics, to how men are just so big and strong that they're the only ones who can truly appreciate the hobby, to how including female space marines is actually disrespectful to people who want female space marines.
1. Some players might get annoyed their favourite chapter master goes in for surgery and in the next novel becomes a female for no reason. Or they kill of his fav dude to introduce diversity. We've seen this happen in comics and that whole genre. Also some people will find it jarring and immersion breaking? I dont know im not invested in SM youd have to ask the SM players
No one is talking about literally changing the gender of existing space marines. And guess what, characters die in the lore all the time. New characters come in, old characters move out. Are you going to throw a fit because Gaunt and his ghosts are getting new models even though they've been dead for something like two hundred plus years in the lore?
2. Wouldn't you just buy some water as its healthier?
I really don't get this.
You can make your own female marines if they are not sold and it means so much to you or you can play SOB if you want females.
There are plenty eldar sculpts that need updating in plastic which would work fine as females without wasting time on SM and giving them more sprues. Or even betetr an entirely new faction based on chicks. Like Amazons in space Id buy that crap.
And you can choose to NOT play female space marines if they should ever become a thing and it will have zero impact on you. Except you've been using the lore as an argument, so what if people want female space marines acknowledged in lore?
3. It works for me too. But might not work for ork players. Agains you'd have to ask them.. Or do their voices and wants don't matter for the greater good?
So you bring up female orks as a bad thing, say it doesn't matter to you, you're just acting as the champion of those poor, unheard voices. But wouldn't that destroy the fluff of the orks? Why do you not have a problem with female orks but argue so vehemently against female space marines?
4. No i stand by my statement. Read the whole thread and tell me some people have zero interest in 40k Sm or warhamemr and only in making sure they kil of male only SM because its somehow bad for women.
Every point you make is in bad faith. You try to shield yourself by playing the devil's advocate, that you're not personally interested in, you're just standing up for the community, for the random joe. Even in this very statement you're wrong, because not a single person in this thread has said remove male space marines and replace them with females. People have stated, over and over, directly to you, that it's an addition, and you can choose not to purchase if it becomes an option.
You are welcome to your opinions. I'm welcome to mine.
We can cherry pick each others points and ignore what is being said and misrepresent arguments ad infinitum... There isn't much to be gained from any further discussion.
I already explained. If you'd actually read what I wrote instead of getting triggered and writing angry drivel perhaps you'd understand where I'm coming from.
I get your position. I do. But I think its a very bad position for the hobby and the wider ideology that's causing it is at its very core abhorrent.
Its categorising and locking women into a group without giving them agency, and determining they are so insecure they cannot be interested in plastic toy soldiers unless they look like them and therefore we have to take away stuff that looks like boys to make them feel better..
That's a terrible opinion and strategy in my opinion..
You respect women so much that you find the idea that they want better representation to be so distasteful that you'd rather they leave the hobby because if they ever got their way, it'd ruin the hobby for you, and you'd leave?
No one is talking about taking stuff away. They're talking about adding on to an existing range. Are you that insecure?
Changing an arguably key part of a faction identity is taking something away, even if the change could also be described as an addition. On the surface that can sound illogical, but the absence of a thing can be just as important to identity as having a thing.
How important is it that SM are all male (and retain that characteristic)? I don't know. It clearly has an effect though.
I find that there is usually a misunderstanding about opinion.
You're free to have any opinion you want, and to voice them. And you (as a person) are entitled to be respected in any case.
That doesn't mean you're welcome to have your opinions: there are stupid, retrograde, dangerous or simply silly opinion. The fact that you have them doesn't mean they're worth anything: an opinion is worth only as much as it can be proven to be factually true, practically useful or logically necessary.
In this case it's none of the above: it's simply an opinion based on wrong assumption and a faulty reasoning.
I don't welcome you to have wrong idea. I don't welcome anyone to be wrong if I can avoid it.
I already explained. If you'd actually read what I wrote instead of getting triggered and writing angry drivel perhaps you'd understand where I'm coming from.
I get your position. I do. But I think its a very bad position for the hobby and the wider ideology that's causing it is at its very core abhorrent.
Its categorising and locking women into a group without giving them agency, and determining they are so insecure they cannot be interested in plastic toy soldiers unless they look like them and therefore we have to take away stuff that looks like boys to make them feel better..
That's a terrible opinion and strategy in my opinion..
You respect women so much that you find the idea that they want better representation to be so distasteful that you'd rather they leave the hobby because if they ever got their way, it'd ruin the hobby for you, and you'd leave?
No one is talking about taking stuff away. They're talking about adding on to an existing range. Are you that insecure?
Changing an arguably key part of a faction identity is taking something away, even if the change could also be described as an addition. On the surface that can sound illogical, but the absence of a thing can be just as important to identity as having a thing.
How important is it that SM are all male (and retain that characteristic)? I don't know. It clearly has an effect though.
You are right; it clearly has an effect. It has the effect of empowering misogynists across the internet with the false authority to respond to female space marines with vitriol, hatred and death threats. And you are right that adding something could be taking it away, and vice versa. With marines being the most marketed faction, most supported faction, faction with the most representation in the lore and black library, and generally easier and more forgiving faction to new players, should provide representation to the broadest audience imaginable.
Argive wrote: You are welcome to your opinions.
I'm welcome to mine.
We can cherry pick each others points and ignore what is being said and misrepresent arguments ad infinitum... There isn't much to be gained from any further discussion.
Correct you are welcome to your opinions, until those opinions become rude/disrespectful. You've made no effort to bring anything to the discussion besides what you want to believe, shutting down anyone that disagrees and ignoring their arguments because you don't believe the issues discussed exist. People have explained as best they can and if you still don't understand the issues being discussed it is on YOU to educate yourself about them. It's not that hard, just put up a picture of a female SM saying you're a female hobbyist and you'll get what the issues are.
Honestly, with the number of posts that all read the same and use certain language ("get triggered", lots of "whataboutism"), I'm convinced that you are posting just to troll.
Further, this does not exist in a vacuum nor is it empty Internet activism, it's real. It's personal, and arguments like Argive's wretched seperate-but-equal philosophy* so closely mirror wider oppressive structures that it's laughable to imagine they aren't being seen for precisely what they are.
My partner, whom I love dearly, is AFAB non-binary and plays Sisters of Battle (order of the Thorn, loads of bone armour and blood spatter) and... femme Soul Drinkers (mostly because purple and jetpacks) they're... very into their melee game. And the gak they have had to wade through because of gatekeeping insecure little manchildren in this hobby turns my stomach. On top of the daily dose of anti trans bs that the world bombards them with. It simply has no place in this funtimes wardollies hobby, and anything that perpetuates that state of affairs isn't just problematic; it's evil.
*parallel structures, indeed, reeks of anti civil rights stances and de facto apartheidism. There Goes The Neighbourhood, as the prophet Ice-T spaketh.
At least we know that people like this still exist in the hobby, and are generally prevalent. If nothing else, this is a sterling example of why we can't have nice things like Women or minorities in the hobby. Because so many lumpties and chads still seemingly hold sway as the gate keepers to this hobby. Hence me moving to AoS.
Animus wrote: Sure, but they don't have the ability to spread gender memes powerful enough to override their basic instincts.
Again, there's not biggoted monkey dad's making sure there sons aren't sissies.
So according to science, wheeled toys are masculine and plush toys are feminine. That's what I learned from that article.
.
What I learned from that article is - oh look, there's an actual wide meta-analysis citing the article, that seems to be more relevant than a small study on rhesus monkeys.
That's strange - it seems like the amount of gendered preference in toy choice increases significantly with the age of the children being studied, and in studies there is a five sigma difference in displayed gendered toy preference in studies that choose a methodology of "Forced Choice" as opposed to a one-sigma difference in gendered toy preference in studies where the child is essentially presented with a large array of toys and allowed to do whatever they would like. "forced choice" methodology involves presenting the child with two or three options and making them choose one, generally as a response to an adult researcher.
A four-sigma statistical difference in a situation where the child is presented with a situation where it seems as though they are being tested by an adult to see if they make the 'correct' choice of toy to play with, paired with a statistically significant increase in gendered preference as children age and learn what they're supposed to be playing with.
Catulle wrote: Further, this does not exist in a vacuum nor is it empty Internet activism, it's real. It's personal, and arguments like Argive's wretched seperate-but-equal philosophy* so closely mirror wider oppressive structures that it's laughable to imagine they aren't being seen for precisely what they are.
My partner, whom I love dearly, is AFAB non-binary and plays Sisters of Battle (order of the Thorn, loads of bone armour and blood spatter) and... femme Soul Drinkers (mostly because purple and jetpacks) they're... very into their melee game. And the gak they have had to wade through because of gatekeeping insecure little manchildren in this hobby turns my stomach. On top of the daily dose of anti trans bs that the world bombards them with. It simply has no place in this funtimes wardollies hobby, and anything that perpetuates that state of affairs isn't just problematic; it's evil.
*parallel structures, indeed, reeks of anti civil rights stances and de facto apartheidism. There Goes The Neighbourhood, as the prophet Ice-T spaketh.
I'd like to chime in here. I'm nonbinary, as well, and my girlfriend is a trans woman. These are facts about me I had yet to share on DakkaDakka. I don't feel "unwelcome" per say in my hobby communities, but part of that is me presenting for the moment as a male. I have no doubt that out-and-out women would have a harder time.
A lot of what I see here, in this thread, is at its heart a resistance to change. I don't know the root cause, but it seems to me like that a lot of people treat their vision of 40k as a sort of holy writ. And for some people, stuff that seems inconsequential - like the non-functioning genitals on an Astartes - is of tantamount importance. It seems very weird to me that people would unironically argue that the Astartes's identity is tied to their maleness in any significant way.
I’m not fussed. I don’t think they need to exist for the setting to be appealing to as many people as possible.
But if the Lore is changed? Not exactly gonna be throwing teddy from the pram, because whether my tiny plastic doods have knockers or knackers makes absolutely no real difference to me or my life.
I love the atitude.
You are entitled to your opinion unless your opinion is against my creed. Then its just wrong.
Clap clap clap.
This is the root problem with policy being driven by ideology.
If you a hammer that wants to hit nails, and go our looking for nails you'll only find a lot of nails.
Catulle wrote: Further, this does not exist in a vacuum nor is it empty Internet activism, it's real. It's personal, and arguments like Argive's wretched seperate-but-equal philosophy* so closely mirror wider oppressive structures that it's laughable to imagine they aren't being seen for precisely what they are.
My partner, whom I love dearly, is AFAB non-binary and plays Sisters of Battle (order of the Thorn, loads of bone armour and blood spatter) and... femme Soul Drinkers (mostly because purple and jetpacks) they're... very into their melee game. And the gak they have had to wade through because of gatekeeping insecure little manchildren in this hobby turns my stomach. On top of the daily dose of anti trans bs that the world bombards them with. It simply has no place in this funtimes wardollies hobby, and anything that perpetuates that state of affairs isn't just problematic; it's evil.
*parallel structures, indeed, reeks of anti civil rights stances and de facto apartheidism. There Goes The Neighbourhood, as the prophet Ice-T spaketh.
I'd like to chime in here. I'm nonbinary, as well, and my girlfriend is a trans woman. These are facts about me I had yet to share on DakkaDakka. I don't feel "unwelcome" per say in my hobby communities, but part of that is me presenting for the moment as a male. I have no doubt that out-and-out women would have a harder time.
A lot of what I see here, in this thread, is at its heart a resistance to change. I don't know the root cause, but it seems to me like that a lot of people treat their vision of 40k as a sort of holy writ. And for some people, stuff that seems inconsequential - like the non-functioning genitals on an Astartes - is of tantamount importance. It seems very weird to me that people would unironically argue that the Astartes's identity is tied to their maleness in any significant way.
Would you expect to be treated any better, worse or no different if you reveal yourself to the community?
All im saying is we seemed to have lost the creed of treating everyone equaly and judging people by the content of their character.
Instead people are focusing on outward appearance as a factor of how to treat people and whats good for them. The whole representation concept only focuses on outward characterstics and sees everything through that lense. I dont think thats a good thing. Treat eachother as humans not as labels of xyz. I think if we do more of that we would have more balanced communities.
Argive wrote: I love the atitude.
You are entitled to your opinion unless your opinion is against my creed. Then its just wrong.
Don't be surprised when poorly informed and flat out stupid opinions are treated as such.
If you a hammer that wants to hit nails, and go our looking for nails you'll only find a lot of nails.
Oh, like the same way that adding women Space Marines is some kind of conspiracy driven by hating men? Because that nail must look pretty tempting for you.
Argive wrote: I love the atitude.
You are entitled to your opinion unless your opinion is against my creed. Then its just wrong.
Don't be surprised when poorly informed and flat out stupid opinions are treated as such.
If you a hammer that wants to hit nails, and go our looking for nails you'll only find a lot of nails.
Oh, like the same way that adding women Space Marines is some kind of conspiracy driven by hating men? Because that nail must look pretty tempting for you.
Bit like male only space mahrines are a sign of oppression that make women feel unwelcome nail? Hows tgat nail looking? We can go around in circles all day. But im not the one thats initiating the change... so... you know...
Argive wrote: Would you expect to be treated any better, worse or no different if you reveal yourself to the community?
Should they be treated equally? Yes. But coming out as non-binary, or really anything other than male, tends to bring a lot of unwanted attention from all the wrong people, which surely you must be aware of - hence why people often struggle to come out as such.
There's a lot of 40k fans who aren't exactly accepting of that kind of stuff.
All im saying is we seemed to have lost the creed of treating everyone equaly and judging people by the content of their character.
No, it's that when people *do* ask to be treated equally, because they weren't being treated equally anyway, you dismiss them and tell them how they're just making it up and were being treated fine the whole time. You are erasing the lived experiences of people by telling them that their concerns are made up, simply because you don't understand it yourself.
Equal treatment like, you know, equal representation in a flagship faction, for example.
The whole representation concept only focuses on outward characterstics and sees everything through that lense.
That's not what representation is.
Please stop attacking this strawman argument of what you think representation means.
Catulle wrote: Further, this does not exist in a vacuum nor is it empty Internet activism, it's real. It's personal, and arguments like Argive's wretched seperate-but-equal philosophy* so closely mirror wider oppressive structures that it's laughable to imagine they aren't being seen for precisely what they are.
My partner, whom I love dearly, is AFAB non-binary and plays Sisters of Battle (order of the Thorn, loads of bone armour and blood spatter) and... femme Soul Drinkers (mostly because purple and jetpacks) they're... very into their melee game. And the gak they have had to wade through because of gatekeeping insecure little manchildren in this hobby turns my stomach. On top of the daily dose of anti trans bs that the world bombards them with. It simply has no place in this funtimes wardollies hobby, and anything that perpetuates that state of affairs isn't just problematic; it's evil.
*parallel structures, indeed, reeks of anti civil rights stances and de facto apartheidism. There Goes The Neighbourhood, as the prophet Ice-T spaketh.
I'd like to chime in here. I'm nonbinary, as well, and my girlfriend is a trans woman. These are facts about me I had yet to share on DakkaDakka. I don't feel "unwelcome" per say in my hobby communities, but part of that is me presenting for the moment as a male. I have no doubt that out-and-out women would have a harder time.
A lot of what I see here, in this thread, is at its heart a resistance to change. I don't know the root cause, but it seems to me like that a lot of people treat their vision of 40k as a sort of holy writ. And for some people, stuff that seems inconsequential - like the non-functioning genitals on an Astartes - is of tantamount importance. It seems very weird to me that people would unironically argue that the Astartes's identity is tied to their maleness in any significant way.
Would you expect to be treated any better, worse or no different if you reveal yourself to the community?
All im saying is we seemed to have lost the creed of treating everyone equaly and judging people by the content of their character.
Instead people are focusing on outward appearance as a factor of how to treat people and whats good for them. The whole representation concept only focuses on outward characterstics and sees everything through that lense. I dont think thats a good thing. Treat eachother as humans not as labels of xyz. I think if we do more of that we would have more balanced communities.
Well, yeah. But we can induce somebody's position from what they say and judge them on those positions accordingly, can we not? That's within bounds, wouldn't you say?
I think that, yes, I would be treated worse if I were out fully. I was in a Discord server for TTS Games of 40k a while back. It was absolutely infested with people posting Stonetoss comics and the like. I think that denying there's a problem with this sort of the stuff in the community doesn't do anything to help.
Argive wrote: Bit like male only space mahrines are a sign of oppression that make women feel unwelcome nail?
I don't believe I mentioned oppression?
I said that they represent and justify exclusionary views, but "oppression"? When did I say that?
Also, please - you haven't elaborated on these "anti-men" conspiracies.
But im not the one thats initiating the change... so... you know...
Actually, GW initiated the change. Women Space Marines were around *long* ago.
Why can't we go back to before those damn dirty lore changes?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RaptorusRex wrote: I think that denying there's a problem with this sort of the stuff in the community doesn't do anything to help.
Absolutely. And denying that there *is* a significant portion of 40k players who fully intend to gatekeep women and other groups out of a certain faction, or even the hobby in general, is a prime example of it.
We literally had an example of someone advocating for that just earlier in the thread.
Argive wrote: Bit like male only space mahrines are a sign of oppression that make women feel unwelcome nail?
I don't believe I mentioned oppression?
I said that they represent and justify exclusionary views, but "oppression"? When did I say that?
Also, please - you haven't elaborated on these "anti-men" conspiracies.
But im not the one thats initiating the change... so... you know...
Actually, GW initiated the change. Women Space Marines were around *long* ago.
Why can't we go back to before those damn dirty lore changes?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RaptorusRex wrote: I think that denying there's a problem with this sort of the stuff in the community doesn't do anything to help.
Absolutely. And denying that there *is* a significant portion of 40k players who fully intend to gatekeep women and other groups out of a certain faction, or even the hobby in general, is a prime example of it.
We literally had an example of someone advocating for that just earlier in the thread.
Well i mean you seem to think men space marines are holding back women from enjoying the hobby? How else could that be if in your world view there isint a male to female power structure?
Argive wrote:Because saying "theres a lot of 40k players who are not accepting that sort of thing" is not strawmaning..?
I mean, where's the lie?
Well i mean you seem to think men space marines are holding back women from enjoying the hobby?
For the last time, it's not the existence of male Astartes that's the problem. It's that there's *only* male Astartes, and that in the flagship faction, hell, the most iconic GW model range, there are absolutely zero women. You seem to think that this is some kind of zero sum "if there's women around, then men can't be" sort of thing, and I have no idea where the hell you're getting that idea from.
Are there women who enjoy the hobby? Yes, of course there are. But many of those women would love women Space Marines, and many more feel threatened by the enforcement (mostly from the community) of a Boys-Only mentality, which is often thinly justified by exclusionary lore.
I like that there seems to be this idea that society has always been accepting of people and treated people equally. Hate to burst the bubble but that's never been the case.
I already explained. If you'd actually read what I wrote instead of getting triggered and writing angry drivel perhaps you'd understand where I'm coming from.
I get your position. I do. But I think its a very bad position for the hobby and the wider ideology that's causing it is at its very core abhorrent.
Its categorising and locking women into a group without giving them agency, and determining they are so insecure they cannot be interested in plastic toy soldiers unless they look like them and therefore we have to take away stuff that looks like boys to make them feel better..
That's a terrible opinion and strategy in my opinion..
You respect women so much that you find the idea that they want better representation to be so distasteful that you'd rather they leave the hobby because if they ever got their way, it'd ruin the hobby for you, and you'd leave?
No one is talking about taking stuff away. They're talking about adding on to an existing range. Are you that insecure?
Changing an arguably key part of a faction identity is taking something away, even if the change could also be described as an addition. On the surface that can sound illogical, but the absence of a thing can be just as important to identity as having a thing.
How important is it that SM are all male (and retain that characteristic)? I don't know. It clearly has an effect though.
You are right; it clearly has an effect. It has the effect of empowering misogynists across the internet with the false authority to respond to female space marines with vitriol, hatred and death threats. And you are right that adding something could be taking it away, and vice versa. With marines being the most marketed faction, most supported faction, faction with the most representation in the lore and black library, and generally easier and more forgiving faction to new players, should provide representation to the broadest audience imaginable.
So to be clear, can we agree that it would be far less of an issue if Space Marines weren't the flagship faction and prime marketing iconography of 40k? Because I'd be pretty ok with that. As a marine player for 25ish years I'm pretty sick of all the attention spent on marines.
I already explained. If you'd actually read what I wrote instead of getting triggered and writing angry drivel perhaps you'd understand where I'm coming from.
I get your position. I do. But I think its a very bad position for the hobby and the wider ideology that's causing it is at its very core abhorrent.
Its categorising and locking women into a group without giving them agency, and determining they are so insecure they cannot be interested in plastic toy soldiers unless they look like them and therefore we have to take away stuff that looks like boys to make them feel better..
That's a terrible opinion and strategy in my opinion..
You respect women so much that you find the idea that they want better representation to be so distasteful that you'd rather they leave the hobby because if they ever got their way, it'd ruin the hobby for you, and you'd leave?
No one is talking about taking stuff away. They're talking about adding on to an existing range. Are you that insecure?
Changing an arguably key part of a faction identity is taking something away, even if the change could also be described as an addition. On the surface that can sound illogical, but the absence of a thing can be just as important to identity as having a thing.
How important is it that SM are all male (and retain that characteristic)? I don't know. It clearly has an effect though.
You are right; it clearly has an effect. It has the effect of empowering misogynists across the internet with the false authority to respond to female space marines with vitriol, hatred and death threats. And you are right that adding something could be taking it away, and vice versa. With marines being the most marketed faction, most supported faction, faction with the most representation in the lore and black library, and generally easier and more forgiving faction to new players, should provide representation to the broadest audience imaginable.
So to be clear, can we agree that it would be far less of an issue if Space Marines weren't the flagship faction and prime marketing iconography of 40k? Because I'd be pretty ok with that. As a marine player for 25ish years I'm pretty sick of all the attention spent on marines.
Yeah, it would be zero issue at all. Orks, Custodes, or Necrons being all male is not at all as much of a thing because 50% of the model releases 90% of the novels and all the advertising ever does not feature only those factions.
(yes I know TECHNICALLY necrons are not all male and they just HAPPEN to be all male except for one random fw character from the novels of the expanded universe or whatever who would probably have metal bewbies appended to her ribcage if GW were ever to make a model for her XD)
(yes I know TECHNICALLY necrons are not all male and they just HAPPEN to be all male except for one random fw character from the novels of the expanded universe or whatever who would probably have metal bewbies appended to her ribcage if GW were ever to make a model for her XD)
I'm pretty sure with the Necrons it is just that male and female look the same.
I mean, if someone told me their Necron lord is female, I would just roll with it.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: I’m ok with female marines, but it would mean like a full duplication of the entire marine range . It could work, if GW was competent.
Or you know.
Some heads added into the next wave of primaris releases which will happen inevitably down the line, and a quick note about how Belligerent Carl is up to his shenanigans again.
"Turns out we had the geneseed set to mini this whole time, and we just needed to set it to wumbo!"
I already explained. If you'd actually read what I wrote instead of getting triggered and writing angry drivel perhaps you'd understand where I'm coming from.
I get your position. I do. But I think its a very bad position for the hobby and the wider ideology that's causing it is at its very core abhorrent.
Its categorising and locking women into a group without giving them agency, and determining they are so insecure they cannot be interested in plastic toy soldiers unless they look like them and therefore we have to take away stuff that looks like boys to make them feel better..
That's a terrible opinion and strategy in my opinion..
You respect women so much that you find the idea that they want better representation to be so distasteful that you'd rather they leave the hobby because if they ever got their way, it'd ruin the hobby for you, and you'd leave?
No one is talking about taking stuff away. They're talking about adding on to an existing range. Are you that insecure?
Changing an arguably key part of a faction identity is taking something away, even if the change could also be described as an addition. On the surface that can sound illogical, but the absence of a thing can be just as important to identity as having a thing.
How important is it that SM are all male (and retain that characteristic)? I don't know. It clearly has an effect though.
You are right; it clearly has an effect. It has the effect of empowering misogynists across the internet with the false authority to respond to female space marines with vitriol, hatred and death threats. And you are right that adding something could be taking it away, and vice versa. With marines being the most marketed faction, most supported faction, faction with the most representation in the lore and black library, and generally easier and more forgiving faction to new players, should provide representation to the broadest audience imaginable.
So to be clear, can we agree that it would be far less of an issue if Space Marines weren't the flagship faction and prime marketing iconography of 40k? Because I'd be pretty ok with that. As a marine player for 25ish years I'm pretty sick of all the attention spent on marines.
Yeah, it would be zero issue at all. Orks, Custodes, or Necrons being all male is not at all as much of a thing because 50% of the model releases 90% of the novels and all the advertising ever does not feature only those factions.
(yes I know TECHNICALLY necrons are not all male and they just HAPPEN to be all male except for one random fw character from the novels of the expanded universe or whatever who would probably have metal bewbies appended to her ribcage if GW were ever to make a model for her XD)
Orkz don’t even have gender and have only one sex tho.
Tyran wrote: I'm pretty sure with the Necrons it is just that male and female look the same.
I mean, if someone told me their Necron lord is female, I would just roll with it.
yeah its almost like the only reason people get obnoxious harassment about femarines is because GW is too cowardly to risk the cancel culture backlash of telling gatekeeping weirdos to feth off.
I already explained. If you'd actually read what I wrote instead of getting triggered and writing angry drivel perhaps you'd understand where I'm coming from.
I get your position. I do. But I think its a very bad position for the hobby and the wider ideology that's causing it is at its very core abhorrent.
Its categorising and locking women into a group without giving them agency, and determining they are so insecure they cannot be interested in plastic toy soldiers unless they look like them and therefore we have to take away stuff that looks like boys to make them feel better..
That's a terrible opinion and strategy in my opinion..
You respect women so much that you find the idea that they want better representation to be so distasteful that you'd rather they leave the hobby because if they ever got their way, it'd ruin the hobby for you, and you'd leave?
No one is talking about taking stuff away. They're talking about adding on to an existing range. Are you that insecure?
Changing an arguably key part of a faction identity is taking something away, even if the change could also be described as an addition. On the surface that can sound illogical, but the absence of a thing can be just as important to identity as having a thing.
How important is it that SM are all male (and retain that characteristic)? I don't know. It clearly has an effect though.
You are right; it clearly has an effect. It has the effect of empowering misogynists across the internet with the false authority to respond to female space marines with vitriol, hatred and death threats. And you are right that adding something could be taking it away, and vice versa. With marines being the most marketed faction, most supported faction, faction with the most representation in the lore and black library, and generally easier and more forgiving faction to new players, should provide representation to the broadest audience imaginable.
So to be clear, can we agree that it would be far less of an issue if Space Marines weren't the flagship faction and prime marketing iconography of 40k? Because I'd be pretty ok with that. As a marine player for 25ish years I'm pretty sick of all the attention spent on marines.
Yeah, it would be zero issue at all. Orks, Custodes, or Necrons being all male is not at all as much of a thing because 50% of the model releases 90% of the novels and all the advertising ever does not feature only those factions.
(yes I know TECHNICALLY necrons are not all male and they just HAPPEN to be all male except for one random fw character from the novels of the expanded universe or whatever who would probably have metal bewbies appended to her ribcage if GW were ever to make a model for her XD)
Orkz don’t even have gender and have only one sex tho.
Yes, yes, and TECHNICALLY asari from mass effect aren't all women they're a mono-sex species of bla bla a human wrote the thing and drew them as blue ladies with big bewbies to get hot lesbians into the third person smoocher video game.
This whole asinine act of smugly disassociating oneself from reality when discussing fictional media online is incredibly tiresome. "why, no, this isn't a depiction of a child on this body pillow, it's clearly a whimsical cartoon pony! She's lying down like that because she's just sleepy! I find your accusation of any untoward intentions on MY part to be most disturbing!"
the_scotsman wrote: yeah its almost like the only reason people get obnoxious harassment about femarines is because GW is too cowardly to risk the cancel culture backlash of telling gatekeeping weirdos to feth off.
Tyran wrote: I'm pretty sure with the Necrons it is just that male and female look the same.
I mean, if someone told me their Necron lord is female, I would just roll with it.
yeah its almost like the only reason people get obnoxious harassment about femarines is because GW is too cowardly to risk the cancel culture backlash of telling gatekeeping weirdos to feth off.
I already explained. If you'd actually read what I wrote instead of getting triggered and writing angry drivel perhaps you'd understand where I'm coming from.
I get your position. I do. But I think its a very bad position for the hobby and the wider ideology that's causing it is at its very core abhorrent.
Its categorising and locking women into a group without giving them agency, and determining they are so insecure they cannot be interested in plastic toy soldiers unless they look like them and therefore we have to take away stuff that looks like boys to make them feel better..
That's a terrible opinion and strategy in my opinion..
You respect women so much that you find the idea that they want better representation to be so distasteful that you'd rather they leave the hobby because if they ever got their way, it'd ruin the hobby for you, and you'd leave?
No one is talking about taking stuff away. They're talking about adding on to an existing range. Are you that insecure?
Changing an arguably key part of a faction identity is taking something away, even if the change could also be described as an addition. On the surface that can sound illogical, but the absence of a thing can be just as important to identity as having a thing.
How important is it that SM are all male (and retain that characteristic)? I don't know. It clearly has an effect though.
You are right; it clearly has an effect. It has the effect of empowering misogynists across the internet with the false authority to respond to female space marines with vitriol, hatred and death threats. And you are right that adding something could be taking it away, and vice versa. With marines being the most marketed faction, most supported faction, faction with the most representation in the lore and black library, and generally easier and more forgiving faction to new players, should provide representation to the broadest audience imaginable.
So to be clear, can we agree that it would be far less of an issue if Space Marines weren't the flagship faction and prime marketing iconography of 40k? Because I'd be pretty ok with that. As a marine player for 25ish years I'm pretty sick of all the attention spent on marines.
Yeah, it would be zero issue at all. Orks, Custodes, or Necrons being all male is not at all as much of a thing because 50% of the model releases 90% of the novels and all the advertising ever does not feature only those factions.
(yes I know TECHNICALLY necrons are not all male and they just HAPPEN to be all male except for one random fw character from the novels of the expanded universe or whatever who would probably have metal bewbies appended to her ribcage if GW were ever to make a model for her XD)
Orkz don’t even have gender and have only one sex tho.
Yes, yes, and TECHNICALLY asari from mass effect aren't all women they're a mono-sex species of bla bla a human wrote the thing and drew them as blue ladies with big bewbies to get hot lesbians into the third person smoocher video game.
This whole asinine act of smugly disassociating oneself from reality when discussing fictional media online is incredibly tiresome. "why, no, this isn't a depiction of a child on this body pillow, it's clearly a whimsical cartoon pony! She's lying down like that because she's just sleepy! I find your accusation of any untoward intentions on MY part to be most disturbing!"
Orks are literally just fungus guys with guns. Orks were designed with violence and goofiness in mind for a setting that was over the top violence to the point of sillyness.
They were also clearly designed as male. Orks are weird in the sense that they only have one biological sex, and it is male. Hence why their basic unit is called "Boyz" and why their characters are always referred with male pronouns. Compare them with Tyranids, which truly have no gender.
Although anyway it is not very relevant, I don't think anyone cares about the Ork's sexual contradictions, because they are not the poster faction.
EDIT: let me rephrase the above. Orks are technically unisex in the sense that they do not do have a biological sex, but they are male gendered. I think that is more precise than my previous concept.
Tyran wrote: They were also clearly designed as male. Orks are weird in the sense that they only have one biological sex, and it is male. Hence why their basic unit is called "Boyz" and why their characters are always referred with male pronouns.
Compare them with Tyranids, which truly have no gender.
Nids are likely all female. Plus, no one has issues with orks being all one gender. If every faction was shown equally then I doubt this discussion would even be started lol.
Tyran wrote: They were also clearly designed as male. Orks are weird in the sense that they only have one biological sex, and it is male. Hence why their basic unit is called "Boyz" and why their characters are always referred with male pronouns.
Compare them with Tyranids, which truly have no gender.
Nids are likely all female. Plus, no one has issues with orks being all one gender. If every faction was shown equally then I doubt this discussion would even be started lol.
Most nids don't even have digestive systems or concept of self. Why would the hivemind waste time giving them biological sex or gender identity...?
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Nids are likely all female. Plus, no one has issues with orks being all one gender. If every faction was shown equally then I doubt this discussion would even be started lol.
IMHO, assigning genders to Tyranids only reveals the worldview of the one doing the assigning. It is not different from assigning genders to objects like cars.
You are right that this is ultimately an issue of unequal faction representation (like most issues in 40k really).
Tyran wrote: They were also clearly designed as male. Orks are weird in the sense that they only have one biological sex, and it is male. Hence why their basic unit is called "Boyz" and why their characters are always referred with male pronouns.
Compare them with Tyranids, which truly have no gender.
Nids are likely all female. Plus, no one has issues with orks being all one gender. If every faction was shown equally then I doubt this discussion would even be started lol.
Most nids don't even have digestive systems or concept of self. Why would the hivemind waste time giving them biological sex or gender identity...?
Why would Orkz stop fightin ta think ‘bout genda It just makes sense, like how both ants and bees are predominantly female and led by queens.
Why would Orkz stop fightin ta think ‘bout genda It just makes sense, like how both ants and bees are predominantly female and led by queens.
The difference is that ants and bees do have biological sexes. There are male bees and ants that fecundate the queens, and we know their genome so we can be certain that sex is part of it. Sex is after all the primary process used by multicellular organisms to recombine the DNA of the new generations (although not all multicellular life is limited to something as simple as a binary sex system).
Tyranids do not have that, because sex is simply obsolete when you can just edit your own genome at will.
Neither do Orks thanks to their nature as bio-weapons, although they do have a gender identity unlike Tyranids.
In the end if they swapped half the primarchs to women and half the space marine characters to women would their characters really change so much? I mean none of them really partake in actions that couldn't be performed by either sex. I mean instead of bringing the father of the Legion they would just be the mother. And instead of brothers it would just be both brother and sister.
Well, that's not necessarily true as it's noted in the HH series that the Primarchs were basically all petty little a-holes each vying for daddies love they were never going to get while also having huge testosterone fights over literally nothing. The Primarch's defining characteristics would be roughly the same (Lorgar's fanaticism, Angron being angry, Khan being wild) but the personal relationships between them would be vastly different.
Tyran wrote: They were also clearly designed as male. Orks are weird in the sense that they only have one biological sex, and it is male. Hence why their basic unit is called "Boyz" and why their characters are always referred with male pronouns.
Compare them with Tyranids, which truly have no gender.
Nids are likely all female. Plus, no one has issues with orks being all one gender. If every faction was shown equally then I doubt this discussion would even be started lol.
no, obviously it would not. marines are by such a massive, hilarious margin the only faction the game seems to be concerned with and they are all male that it creates this weird situation where like, if you actually want to get a female head out of a games workshop kit you have to go hunting around for it like a little minigame.
I've used the like 4 spare heads I got out of a sprue of sisters of silence for models for Necromunda, models for the Inquisition, and models for GSC because hey, it's a fething human female head that I've got in my bits box and it isn't wearing a wild crazy distinctive hairstyle like my escher stuff. It's got a grill from a medieval knight's helmet on it, but, hey I got no other options if I don't want to make some random model a lady, wheras my bits box has 1230971428370918723098371098560918561092873 dude heads in it.
Gert wrote: Well, that's not necessarily true as it's noted in the HH series that the Primarchs were basically all petty little a-holes each vying for daddies love they were never going to get while also having huge testosterone fights over literally nothing. The Primarch's defining characteristics would be roughly the same (Lorgar's fanaticism, Angron being angry, Khan being wild) but the personal relationships between them would be vastly different.
Why? They’re demigods made of warp effery and magitek. Why would some of them being female change... well, much of anything?
They can still be petty d-bags, they can still have all their human foibles.
Gert wrote: Well, that's not necessarily true as it's noted in the HH series that the Primarchs were basically all petty little a-holes each vying for daddies love they were never going to get while also having huge testosterone fights over literally nothing. The Primarch's defining characteristics would be roughly the same (Lorgar's fanaticism, Angron being angry, Khan being wild) but the personal relationships between them would be vastly different.
Because women never do any of those things...? Sisters never fight over the attention of a parent?
I could totally see Curze as a crazy azula like character (well her in the later off her rocker episodes) and the Alpha twins as extremely androgynous like their legion so they could all pass as each other.
Because women never do any of those things...? Sisters never fight over the attention of a parent?
I could totally see Curze as a crazy azula like character (well her in the later off her rocker episodes) and the Alpha twins as extremely androgynous like their legion so they could all pass as each other.
It's not that brothers and sisters don't have sibling conflicts but rather the problems that arise when you take 20ish super powerful demigods who are all trying to prove their the strongest because testosterone. Now sure any female Primarchs would still likely be a-holes but you don't get d*ck measuring contests between brothers and sisters. It's said by Malcador that having a few sisters might have mellowed the Primarchs and made them less angsty all the time. Of course, we know that the Emperor was going to civil-war them all anyway and keep his favs but only he knew that in universe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Des702 wrote: As long as they don't sexulize the armour I don't see how this would really hurt marines.
X to doubt on this one, see Stormcast for details.
I don’t know why someone couldn’t just buy a female head and slap it on a Space Marines body right now? The lore?
My Necrons are all female except the named ones.
Kinda what this whole thread has been about my guy. You can do that and many people do, they just get screamed at and have horrible insults hurled at them by the Internet.
Because women never do any of those things...? Sisters never fight over the attention of a parent?
I could totally see Curze as a crazy azula like character (well her in the later off her rocker episodes) and the Alpha twins as extremely androgynous like their legion so they could all pass as each other.
It's not that brothers and sisters don't have sibling conflicts but rather the problems that arise when you take 20ish super powerful demigods who are all trying to prove their the strongest because testosterone. Now sure any female Primarchs would still likely be a-holes but you don't get d*ck measuring contests between brothers and sisters. It's said by Malcador that having a few sisters might have mellowed the Primarchs and made them less angsty all the time. Of course, we know that the Emperor was going to civil-war them all anyway and keep his favs but only he knew that in universe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Des702 wrote: As long as they don't sexulize the armour I don't see how this would really hurt marines.
X to doubt on this one, see Stormcast for details.
I don’t know why someone couldn’t just buy a female head and slap it on a Space Marines body right now? The lore?
My Necrons are all female except the named ones.
Kinda what this whole thread has been about my guy. You can do that and many people do, they just get screamed at and have horrible insults hurled at them by the Internet.
While yes women don't literally measure certain organs to prove who is better I definitely have seen some of the insane viciousness woman can inflict upon one another for achievements and glory. A very good example is Tanya Harding.
Edit: very few of the primarchs turned due to wanting to prove physically they were the strongest. Mostly it was glory. Do women lack the drive for glory completely or something?
Des702 wrote: As long as they don't sexulize the armour I don't see how this would really hurt marines.
I don’t know why someone couldn’t just buy a female head and slap it on a Space Marines body right now? The lore?
My Necrons are all female except the named ones.
Generally speaking that *is* what people are doing, but should they (very) dare talk about it online, that's when the loreboys descend with the "well, actually..."s and spam that heresy .gif.
And that is the very mildest tip-of-the-iceberg of the pushback the gatekeepers employ. "My marines would rape your marines, then I would rape you" is a PM I have *seen* sent to a friend doing just that (albeit with worse spelling and grammar.)
At least things are trending in the right direction and the reactionary death throes are what we're probably seeing.
"We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray through miniatures, art and storytelling so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to.
And if you feel the same way, wherever and whoever you are, we're glad you are part of the Warhammer community. If not, you will not be missed."
While yes women don't literally measure certain organs to prove who is better I definitely have seen some of the insane viciousness woman can inflict upon one another for achievements and glory. A very good example is Tanya Harding.
Edit: very few of the primarchs turned due to wanting to prove physically they were the strongest. Mostly it was glory. Do women lack the drive for glory completely or something?
Lorgar, Magnus, Perturabo, Angron, and Mortarion all turned because of hatred for their brothers and father. Curze also hated his brothers but at the same time was nuts, Alpharius-Omegon hated quite a few of the Primarchs, and Fulgrim was a preening self-obsessive who got corrupted by Slaanesh and still had a lot of anger towards a lot of his siblings. Horus was the only Primarch who didn't actively hate any of his brothers.
Look all I'm saying is that if Uncle Malcador said to Russ's face that the Emperor made a mistake with the buff-guy testosterone fest, then it might be a little bit worth considering.
Of course I'm not a huge fan of that kind of change, more so I'm in favour of adding new lore or adding to time periods that have little to no info (i.e. War of the Beast, Horus Heresy)
While yes women don't literally measure certain organs to prove who is better I definitely have seen some of the insane viciousness woman can inflict upon one another for achievements and glory. A very good example is Tanya Harding.
Edit: very few of the primarchs turned due to wanting to prove physically they were the strongest. Mostly it was glory. Do women lack the drive for glory completely or something?
Lorgar, Magnus, Perturabo, Angron, and Mortarion all turned because of hatred for their brothers and father. Curze also hated his brothers but at the same time was nuts, Alpharius-Omegon hated quite a few of the Primarchs, and Fulgrim was a preening self-obsessive who got corrupted by Slaanesh and still had a lot of anger towards a lot of his siblings. Horus was the only Primarch who didn't actively hate any of his brothers.
Look all I'm saying is that if Uncle Malcador said to Russ's face that the Emperor made a mistake with the buff-guy testosterone fest, then it might be a little bit worth considering.
Of course I'm not a huge fan of that kind of change, more so I'm in favour of adding new lore or adding to time periods that have little to no info (i.e. War of the Beast, Horus Heresy)
I get that was what Macador thought but are you saying sisters don't have the capacity for such sibling hate?
Regardless I thing if GW decides to add women it will be with Cawl and not likely retroactively.
Seeing as how Genetic mind alteration is a thing in 40k, Custodes are incapable of disobeying, Valarian is a skip, why were they "Created" at all with the capacity to not follow orders, or be more "Together as one" team focused?
Des702 wrote: While yes women don't literally measure certain organs to prove who is better I definitely have seen some of the insane viciousness woman can inflict upon one another for achievements and glory. A very good example is Tanya Harding.
Edit: very few of the primarchs turned due to wanting to prove physically they were the strongest. Mostly it was glory. Do women lack the drive for glory completely or something?
I'll diverge with Gert (Bristolian, right?) on this one and say none of their story beats revolve around their masculinity (save maybe the Lion's repressed homosexuality in a hyper masculine environment). But I'd bet that if you genderswitched him you'd get the Holdo crowd out in force, and likewise Magnus would have done everything wrong. But the opprobrium of arseholes is a badge of honour and all that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: Horus was the only Primarch who didn't actively hate any of his brothers.
As a brief off topic aside, that love, not hate, serves Chaos best... is one of the better subtext of the HH series. Road to hell, etc. Humanity's nature is self-destructive, only way to win is not to play. Suuuuuper bleak.
Catulle wrote: Further, this does not exist in a vacuum nor is it empty Internet activism, it's real. It's personal, and arguments like Argive's wretched seperate-but-equal philosophy* so closely mirror wider oppressive structures that it's laughable to imagine they aren't being seen for precisely what they are.
My partner, whom I love dearly, is AFAB non-binary and plays Sisters of Battle (order of the Thorn, loads of bone armour and blood spatter) and... femme Soul Drinkers (mostly because purple and jetpacks) they're... very into their melee game. And the gak they have had to wade through because of gatekeeping insecure little manchildren in this hobby turns my stomach. On top of the daily dose of anti trans bs that the world bombards them with. It simply has no place in this funtimes wardollies hobby, and anything that perpetuates that state of affairs isn't just problematic; it's evil.
*parallel structures, indeed, reeks of anti civil rights stances and de facto apartheidism. There Goes The Neighbourhood, as the prophet Ice-T spaketh.
I'd like to chime in here. I'm nonbinary, as well, and my girlfriend is a trans woman. These are facts about me I had yet to share on DakkaDakka. I don't feel "unwelcome" per say in my hobby communities, but part of that is me presenting for the moment as a male. I have no doubt that out-and-out women would have a harder time.
A lot of what I see here, in this thread, is at its heart a resistance to change. I don't know the root cause, but it seems to me like that a lot of people treat their vision of 40k as a sort of holy writ. And for some people, stuff that seems inconsequential - like the non-functioning genitals on an Astartes - is of tantamount importance. It seems very weird to me that people would unironically argue that the Astartes's identity is tied to their maleness in any significant way.
Would you expect to be treated any better, worse or no different if you reveal yourself to the community?
All im saying is we seemed to have lost the creed of treating everyone equaly and judging people by the content of their character.
Instead people are focusing on outward appearance as a factor of how to treat people and whats good for them. The whole representation concept only focuses on outward characterstics and sees everything through that lense. I dont think thats a good thing. Treat eachother as humans not as labels of xyz. I think if we do more of that we would have more balanced communities.
Well, yeah. But we can induce somebody's position from what they say and judge them on those positions accordingly, can we not? That's within bounds, wouldn't you say?
I think that, yes, I would be treated worse if I were out fully. I was in a Discord server for TTS Games of 40k a while back. It was absolutely infested with people posting Stonetoss comics and the like. I think that denying there's a problem with this sort of the stuff in the community doesn't do anything to help.
My friend you are confusing internet space with reality...
It sucks what hapepend but why care about words on the itnernet? Anonymity is giving people ability to say nasty stuff that they would never say in real life and children trolls... Fug them..
It sucks it happened, but I dont think you can tar the entire 40k comunity with that brush because of some TTs discord thing.
In real life reality - Evolution will take care of all the horrible noninclusive communities if it's deemed unacceptable and people reject them.
If you have a community thats "eww non-boys are ewww!!" they simply won't last very long, and will not attract new members because they are clearly horrible people and any normal person can see that...
While yes women don't literally measure certain organs to prove who is better I definitely have seen some of the insane viciousness woman can inflict upon one another for achievements and glory. A very good example is Tanya Harding.
Edit: very few of the primarchs turned due to wanting to prove physically they were the strongest. Mostly it was glory. Do women lack the drive for glory completely or something?
Lorgar, Magnus, Perturabo, Angron, and Mortarion all turned because of hatred for their brothers and father. Curze also hated his brothers but at the same time was nuts, Alpharius-Omegon hated quite a few of the Primarchs, and Fulgrim was a preening self-obsessive who got corrupted by Slaanesh and still had a lot of anger towards a lot of his siblings. Horus was the only Primarch who didn't actively hate any of his brothers.
Look all I'm saying is that if Uncle Malcador said to Russ's face that the Emperor made a mistake with the buff-guy testosterone fest, then it might be a little bit worth considering.
Of course I'm not a huge fan of that kind of change, more so I'm in favour of adding new lore or adding to time periods that have little to no info (i.e. War of the Beast, Horus Heresy)
I get that was what Macador thought but are you saying sisters don't have the capacity for such sibling hate?
Regardless I thing if GW decides to add women it will be with Cawl and not likely retroactively.
I agree, frankly no gender has a monopoly on hate, testosterone only makes it more likely to lead to violence.
IMO there’s a bare handful of primarchs (Russ, Lion, Angron IMO) that work notably better as men and then not by much.
Even the Dorn/Perturabo rivalry would work just as well with a dynamic like Zuko/Azula from ATLA
Des702 wrote: As long as they don't sexulize the armour I don't see how this would really hurt marines.
I don’t know why someone couldn’t just buy a female head and slap it on a Space Marines body right now? The lore?
My Necrons are all female except the named ones.
Generally speaking that *is* what people are doing, but should they (very) dare talk about it online, that's when the loreboys descend with the "well, actually..."s and spam that heresy .gif.
And that is the very mildest tip-of-the-iceberg of the pushback the gatekeepers employ. "My marines would rape your marines, then I would rape you" is a PM I have *seen* sent to a friend doing just that (albeit with worse spelling and grammar.)
At least things are trending in the right direction and the reactionary death throes are what we're probably seeing.
"We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray through miniatures, art and storytelling so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to.
And if you feel the same way, wherever and whoever you are, we're glad you are part of the Warhammer community. If not, you will not be missed."
Have you ever talked to a human being face to face in a 40k game?
Sounds like your entire exposure to 40k is from online space..
Des702 wrote: As long as they don't sexulize the armour I don't see how this would really hurt marines.
I don’t know why someone couldn’t just buy a female head and slap it on a Space Marines body right now? The lore?
My Necrons are all female except the named ones.
Generally speaking that *is* what people are doing, but should they (very) dare talk about it online, that's when the loreboys descend with the "well, actually..."s and spam that heresy .gif.
And that is the very mildest tip-of-the-iceberg of the pushback the gatekeepers employ. "My marines would rape your marines, then I would rape you" is a PM I have *seen* sent to a friend doing just that (albeit with worse spelling and grammar.)
At least things are trending in the right direction and the reactionary death throes are what we're probably seeing.
"We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray through miniatures, art and storytelling so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to.
And if you feel the same way, wherever and whoever you are, we're glad you are part of the Warhammer community. If not, you will not be missed."
Have you ever talked to a human being face to face in a 40k game?
Sounds like your entire exposure to 40k is from online space..
Chap.
I've been playing this game since Rogue Trader, crossbow shurikens and all.
The massively online bit is, well, *accentuated* right now.
Argive wrote:]My friend you are confusing internet space with reality...
The people who made those comments on the internet are also real people, who hold those views.
Whether said in person or from behind the cowardice of a computer screen, they are still expressing (and impressing) their toxicity on others.
It sucks what hapepend but why care about words on the itnernet?
Because those words are still coming from their minds and fingertips. When they step out from their dens and caves into the hobby store, those opinions and beliefs don't vanish too.
Anonymity is giving people ability to say nasty stuff that they would never say in real life and children trolls... Fug them..
Exactly the problem - they wouldn't say it in real life, but they're thinking it. And all it takes is for them to feel emboldened (perhaps by some thirty year old lore) and then they can speak their drivel in person as well.
It sucks it happened, but I dont think you can tar the entire 40k comunity with that brush because of some TTs discord thing.
And it's lucky that you've never experienced it, but you can't ignore someone's testimony of victimhood, and the collective testimonies of everyone who has been made to feel uncomfortable in the hobby.
All you're doing is devaluing peoples' problems and legitimate issues because you aren't able to have empathy with that.
In real life reality - Evolution will take care of all the horrible noninclusive communities if it's deemed unacceptable and people reject them.
Have you considered that evolution is still in process, and may yet include adding women Space Marines?
If you have a community thats "eww non-boys are ewww!!" they simply won't last very long, and will not attract new members because they are clearly horrible people and any normal person can see that...
I don't know - 40k was a very male-dominated hobby for a LONG time, and is only really now beginning to open its arms to a wider audience who are looking for representation.
Perhaps it is very much time for the 40k community to change.
Even from a purely selfish level we should be happy for inclusion. More players means a more support and more likely the hobby will continue. And like what was said before, it's not a zero sum game. Everyone can win.
Des702 wrote: Even from a purely selfish level we should be happy for inclusion. More players means a more support and more likely the hobby will continue. And like what was said before, it's not a zero sum game. Everyone can win.
I didn't look thoroughly through the thread, but is there any real evidence to suggest that including female representation will increase the number of female collectors? Is this just a few users projecting that this will happen or are games with equal female representation increasing their player base with more female collectors and gamers?
Gert wrote: Well, that's not necessarily true as it's noted in the HH series that the Primarchs were basically all petty little a-holes each vying for daddies love they were never going to get while also having huge testosterone fights over literally nothing. The Primarch's defining characteristics would be roughly the same (Lorgar's fanaticism, Angron being angry, Khan being wild) but the personal relationships between them would be vastly different.
Why? They’re demigods made of warp effery and magitek. Why would some of them being female change... well, much of anything?
They can still be petty d-bags, they can still have all their human foibles.
Oh wow, I come back after a decade and I recognize a name from Giantitp forums. Hi JNA!
------------------
GW could do this with some new heads on a sprue, it's not like you can tell the differences in people's bodies when they're inside exosuit level power armor. It's not like all marines out of suit are the exact same height, right?
I personally think it'd be a good thing, yes the sisters exist but the marines are the poster child of the entire universe, it's their helmet on all the advertising, they're the ones in every single starter kit, it's offputting to tell half of the world's population that they're not allowed to identify with the superheroes of the game.
And if Cawl can find a note with the secret sauce to add an extra 3 organs to the space marine surgery, I don't see why he couldn't find a post it note stuck to Guilliman's shoe that mentions how to better stabilize the gene seed.
Des702 wrote: Even from a purely selfish level we should be happy for inclusion. More players means a more support and more likely the hobby will continue. And like what was said before, it's not a zero sum game. Everyone can win.
On that note I'd honestly much prefer it if FEWER people played Space Marines, and instead played other factions (which could also use more diversity.)
I already explained. If you'd actually read what I wrote instead of getting triggered and writing angry drivel perhaps you'd understand where I'm coming from.
I get your position. I do. But I think its a very bad position for the hobby and the wider ideology that's causing it is at its very core abhorrent.
Its categorising and locking women into a group without giving them agency, and determining they are so insecure they cannot be interested in plastic toy soldiers unless they look like them and therefore we have to take away stuff that looks like boys to make them feel better..
That's a terrible opinion and strategy in my opinion..
You respect women so much that you find the idea that they want better representation to be so distasteful that you'd rather they leave the hobby because if they ever got their way, it'd ruin the hobby for you, and you'd leave?
No one is talking about taking stuff away. They're talking about adding on to an existing range. Are you that insecure?
Changing an arguably key part of a faction identity is taking something away, even if the change could also be described as an addition. On the surface that can sound illogical, but the absence of a thing can be just as important to identity as having a thing.
How important is it that SM are all male (and retain that characteristic)? I don't know. It clearly has an effect though.
You are right; it clearly has an effect. It has the effect of empowering misogynists across the internet with the false authority to respond to female space marines with vitriol, hatred and death threats. And you are right that adding something could be taking it away, and vice versa. With marines being the most marketed faction, most supported faction, faction with the most representation in the lore and black library, and generally easier and more forgiving faction to new players, should provide representation to the broadest audience imaginable.
So to be clear, can we agree that it would be far less of an issue if Space Marines weren't the flagship faction and prime marketing iconography of 40k? Because I'd be pretty ok with that. As a marine player for 25ish years I'm pretty sick of all the attention spent on marines.
Yeah, it would be zero issue at all. Orks, Custodes, or Necrons being all male is not at all as much of a thing because 50% of the model releases 90% of the novels and all the advertising ever does not feature only those factions.
(yes I know TECHNICALLY necrons are not all male and they just HAPPEN to be all male except for one random fw character from the novels of the expanded universe or whatever who would probably have metal bewbies appended to her ribcage if GW were ever to make a model for her XD)
Sorry scotsman I can't tell how sarcastic this reply is.
I'm definitely in the "more representation" camp, but have mixed feelings on the Space Marine front, aside from having the opinion that SM are way overrepresented.
It's also weird to me that Custodes wound up being all male.
Des702 wrote: Even from a purely selfish level we should be happy for inclusion. More players means a more support and more likely the hobby will continue. And like what was said before, it's not a zero sum game. Everyone can win.
I didn't look thoroughly through the thread, but is there any real evidence to suggest that including female representation will increase the number of female collectors? Is this just a few users projecting that this will happen or are games with equal female representation increasing their player base with more female collectors and gamers?
By "real evidence" it's important to establish whether talking to actual women counts, because... yes, yes it does. And it matters more the harder and faster the boys-only club is pushed as the face of the game. This reflects on all of us.
I mean I am sure you're going to find some women on both sides of the argument so I don't know how effective anecdotal talk to a woman thing cuz sometimes that gets shot back with "well I know one woman who plays and she doesn't care". And in fact I do happen to know one woman who plays and thinks it's stupid to have female space marines. (I don't agree)
I think the more logical argument is going to be what is the true loss of changing this bit of fluff Versus what is the potential benefit. I think the loss is very small compared to the benefit that it's going to have in the overarching future of the hobby. I mean think about it considering we're in this hobby I would say most of us have dealt with some type of exclusion in our life. And in fact it's one of the weird things I find about nerd culture in general, how we've all been excluded most of our lives because of our hobbies and our interests and yet we're so ready to do the same to others and if we have such a small thing that we can do that really doesn't impact our Hobby in any way meaningful but makes other people feel included why are we not banding together to do that.
Edit: or you would need a much more official poll if we're going to determine based off of people's opinions and feelings.
As much as this is always been a boys game it's very rapidly changing from that and becoming more mainstream. So having your flagship faction be more inclusive just makes more sense to me. There's nothing wrong with a couple boys only faction in a couple girls only faction and a couple of no gendered factions. But not as your flagship product. Honestly if Warhammer had developed and Imperial guard was the forerunner there would be no debate whether or not space Marines need to have diversity in it because you have the diverse faction being the flagship faction.
Honestly right now it looks like Games workshop wants to go the route of having two flagship factions one being sisters and one being Marines and that possibly could work but they would have to really push sisters for the next couple years to get it at the same level of support as Marines. I mean they have a new comic coming out with sisters they have a bunch of new models they have a similar Roboute Gilliman model for them. I definitely feel like as of late they are the second most favored faction out there with all the new models. I don't think we'll have the same impact as having female space Marines but maybe it will...
Honestly right now it looks like Games workshop wants to go the route of having two flagship factions one being sisters and one being Marines and that possibly could work but they would have to really push sisters for the next couple years to get it at the same level of support as Marines. I mean they have a new comic coming out with sisters they have a bunch of new models they have a similar Roboute Gilliman model for them. I definitely feel like as of late they are the second most favored faction out there with all the new models. I don't think we'll have the same impact as having female space Marines but maybe it will...
It seems to me GW have really swung in that direction that's exactly what they are doing. I can see them embracing SOB as the new "prime" faction and milking it. I hope they do shift more in that direction. I hope fewer marines and more "other stuff" resulting in hopefully; a more even split in releases. It could be a win-win for everyone.
When it comes to female marines I really come from an angle of “why not”, people need to come up with some real justified reason for maintaining the status quo. Because the the question new players will have, that’s the question women looking in will have. Why aren’t women represented in the flagship faction.
Over the years I have heard no argument to justify not changing. The lore, that’s rubbish, that changes all the time, marines have changed more times than I can remember. Science, what a joke, doesn’t stand up to real world scrutiny let alone bonkers 40K science; it don’t matter the starting hormones of someone when you are going to pump them full of stuff anyway.
If female space marines causes you offence then ask your self why is that? Why is it so important to you that only men can be in this made up fantasy army? Most will find that it doesn’t really, some will find that they are bigots.
A woman or young girl wanting to look at 40K they won’t care that ORKS are asexual fungus or that the metal undead space robots might be women, or that there is a whole faction sexualised space nuns with metal boobs and even some in high heals....they will see marines and the sausage fest it is and then see all the nerd rage at anyone who suggests it changes so as to make more people welcome.
As for evidence, representation being a barrier to inclusivity is a well established fact seen many many times. No reason to think wargaming is any different. It will most likely always attract more men and boys then women but that doesn’t mean it should exclude them.
I have always assumed there are female marines - its just that telling male from female on 8 foot muscle bound augemented post humans isnt so easy.
We know the process is optimised for males, but that doesnt mean it wont work on females - just if there is say, a 50 failure rate in males, it will higher in females. Chapters that are more independent or not so interested in the rules are likely to have tried and there will have been successes. Its just the muscle bound hulks are not easily IDed as M/F and take marine names. I imagine its not like they have much of a sexuality as a marine, and I imagine their reaction to questions of gender is that they are Marines, as a not quite human anymore.
Unfortunately, GW is very slow to alter the lore of their flag ship brand, unless it's completely altering it (Primaris), or completely ruining it (Ultramarines/GK/G0T0), or completely selling out on it (DoW3/backflipping terminators).
Nope, protecting the sanctity of the Space Marine brand is VERY important to GW.
Andykp wrote: If female space marines causes you offence then ask your self why is that? Why is it so important to you that only men can be in this made up fantasy army? Most will find that it doesn’t really, some will find that they are bigots.
Part of the issue here is that most nonchalantly claim “I don’t care what you do with your plastic toy soldiers so there is no problem, and not one that requires a solution like putting the muscle of the holders of the IP behind allowing such things.”
They disregard their fellows who either implicitly or explicitly do care. They make this claim while denying the problem exists because it does not affect them, and they personally have not experienced or participated in it, and therefore can not understand how someone else could be affected. They insulate those who are responsible for creating a hostile climate for certain gender or racial demographics from any sort of consequences through denial of their personal experiences and clinging to the space marines as males, and I think it’s a good sign when people drag their feet through the muck when you try to implement such change because all meaningful change makes some people uncomfortable. And god bless the likes of Argive for screaming and whining in the face of progressive change because were it not for the likes of him I wouldn’t be certain that this was the right move.
I see I was correct when I said this was cringe and just activism, always ends in political discussions and this topic should be banned at this point as a political one because the activists always make it so.
As I said before if you want to buy the models and do what you want with them, go for it, but that does not mean you get to force your views on others like some sort of buy in ticket system, if you cannot handle that go complain on Twitter or 4chan ... or you know, do some useful activism like helping the homeless.
Thing is there chief rep in media (i.e. things like female sm/non-white dudes as main characters in stories or as models) ain't politics nor is it cringe.
If I were to come on Dakka and say something like "all UK users should vote for the Greens at the next General Election" or discuss the political ramifications of Brexit in 40k General/Background then that would be politics.
You could take the stance that all things in life have a connection to politics as the policies of ruling parties effect all levels of life, but that doesn't mean you get to shut down discussion of the hobby we share because someone said it wasn't perfect and was difficult to be a part of for certain people.
Just as a little side note, is it just the people advocating for female SM you think shouldn't be allowed to discuss the topic or do you also think the people who are anti-female SM shouldn't be allowed to discuss it?
Formosa wrote:I see I was correct when I said this was cringe and just activism, always ends in political discussions and this topic should be banned at this point as a political one because the activists always make it so.
Being a woman isn't political. Wanting to see yourself represented isn't political, and it's frankly more of a slight on you that you'd believe so.
As I said before if you want to buy the models and do what you want with them, go for it
But that's the problem - have you seen the comments people make when women Space Marines are made? Hell, by even bringing up the subject, you seem to think it's politically motivated.
Now, I'm very much of the opinion that *everything* is political, even neutrality, but going by your own standards that you can apparently have apolitical things, wanting representation isn't even political.
but that does not mean you get to force your views on others like some sort of by in ticket system
Wanting women Astartes isn't forcing you to do anything. If you don't like women Astartes, don't take them. No-one's forcing you.
But if you think for a second that the lore changing to let other people take it, without having to put up with the endless whinging and screaming about how it's non-canon, is forcing you to do anything at all, you might want to re-evaluate your stance.
or you know, do some useful activism like helping the homeless.
Bold to assume that you can't do both together - I was under the impression that people were able to care about multiple things. Or did I overestimate your own abilities for such acts?
Gert wrote: Thing is there chief rep in media (i.e. things like female sm/non-white dudes as main characters in stories or as models) ain't politics nor is it cringe.
If I were to come on Dakka and say something like "all UK users should vote for the Greens at the next General Election" or discuss the political ramifications of Brexit in 40k General/Background then that would be politics.
You could take the stance that all things in life have a connection to politics as the policies of ruling parties effect all levels of life, but that doesn't mean you get to shut down discussion of the hobby we share because someone said it wasn't perfect and was difficult to be a part of for certain people.
Just as a little side note, is it just the people advocating for female SM you think shouldn't be allowed to discuss the topic or do you also think the people who are anti-female SM shouldn't be allowed to discuss it?
Nonsense, X,Y or Z not being political is the excuse activists use all the time knowing damn well it is political and assuming the rest of us are too politically stupid to be able to tell, they just want to be able to talk about THEIR political activism while shutting others out of theirs and I do not care what the excuse is I want it all gone, especially as the Mods were quite clear on this matter and I am surprised this thread has got this far with this much political talk in it, its cringe and has no place here so go do activism on Twitter or 4chan if you all cant keep it in your pants.
The existence of women is not a political topic. Women exist. If that's a problem for you, that's a shame, but not a reason to take it on yourself to declare the thread over. Let the moderation team decide what is and isn't appropriate for the forum.
For the record, discussion of female marines has generally been banned in the past not because it was political, but because it inevitably went off the rails very quickly. That hasn't happened here, with the thread being remarkably well behaved, for the most part. I take that as a positive sign that this particular topic is becoming less contentious amongst the community.
Formosa wrote:Nonsense, X,Y or Z not being political is the excuse activists use all the time knowing damn well it is political
Okay - what part of it is political? What part of "women exist, and would like to exist in the flagship faction" is political, because I'm not seeing why.
insaniak wrote: The existence of women is not a political topic. Women exist. If that's a problem for you, that's a shame, but not a reason to take it on yourself to declare the thread over. Let the moderation team decide what is and isn't appropriate for the forum.
For the record, discussion of female marines has generally been banned in the past not because it was political, but because it inevitably went off the rails very quickly. That hasn't happened here, with the thread being remarkably well behaved, for the most part. I take that as a positive sign that this particular topic is becoming less contentious amongst the community.
I disagree with you and your framing of my argument, woman existing is irrelevant as of course they do and that has nothing to do with my point, my point is this ALWAYS gets political and it has quite clearly become so with the last few pages literally discussing politics, you disagree of course and you are the Mod here not me so that stands however note I did not report the thread so there is no "declaring the thread is over" no, I expressed my opinion and kept within the rules that this is a political discussion and should have been stopped by now based on those same rules, you Mod as you see fit of course.
I keep coming back here precisely because politics is banned
Not Online!!! wrote: Truly better beheaved? Or are you just blind because you obviously sided with one side to the remark casually thrown around in this very thread?
I did say '... for the most part'. It's required some moderation, and I wouldnt be showing this thread to my daughters as an example of how to behave online, but compared to previous discussions on this topic it's been considerably better behaved, yes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote: however note I did not report the thread so there is no "declaring the thread is over
No, see, that's exactly the problem. You didn't contribute to the discussion, you just posted in the thread to complain that you don't think the discussion belongs here. The appropriate thing to do would have been to not post in the thread, report it, and leave it to the mods to decide whether or not it belongs here.
All of which is getting somewhat off topic. Let's either get it back on track or move on, folks.
No, see, that's exactly the problem. You didn't contribute to the discussion, you just posted in the thread to complain that you don't think the discussion belongs here. The appropriate thing to do would have been to not post in the thread, report it, and leave it to the mods to decide whether or not it belongs here.
Again I politely disagree with that framing, I contributed to the thread, was polite and respectful and did not let myself get baited into a debate, we literally have people talking about left and right wing, tories etc. and other things further in the thread.
For what its worth, again if people want to but the models and do what they want with them, who cares, this does not give these people carte blanche to demand we then change it to suit their flavour of the month activism, this is escapism for many many people and the increasing attempt at politicisation using woman as the current vector will break the community up, I object to this and this is both on topic and in context with the last 8 or so pages.
other than that I guess we just agree to disagree and I will leave it here as you ask.
Formosa wrote:this does not give these people carte blanche to demand we then change it to suit their flavour of the month activism
Women having representation isn't "flavour of the month activism" though, is it?
this is escapism for many many people
Does your escapism hinge on women not being represented as Space Marines? If women could become Space Marines, what escapist fantasy are you losing? What about women's escapism?
and the increasing attempt at politicisation using woman as the current vector will break the community up
I ask again, what is political about women's representation? You, and many others, make these veiled references to "politics" and "agendas" and "conspiracies" - all I see is women asking to be represented evenly, and the most realistic way to achieve that even representation is by reconsidering lore that only exists to justify ending poor sales of some god-awful sculpts.
I'm not going to bother replying to anyone specific because there are too many posts and too many threads in this tangled mess to address so I'm just going to lay out my thoughts.
The core issue is that I have yet to see a single convincing argument given as to why female space marines should be added. NOT ONE But lets address some of the ones that have appeared:
"Why not?"
Spoiler:
First off, that is never any acceptable argument in any actual discussion of substance. If you and your friends are discussing the merits of chugging a milkshake while riding a unicycle, fine. If you actually are trying to actually advocate for something though it actually makes your position look worse.
Second, the answer to "why not?" is that in this case female Space Marines are specifically excluded from the fiction by the specific mention in current canon that geneseed, a essential part of space marine creation, is tied to the male zygote. If you think that that is arbitrary congratulations, all fiction is arbitrary.
"Well I want it/I've heard someone else say they want it, so you need to respect that person's desires/opinion."
Spoiler:
There are clearly people who are also not in favor of it as evidenced by this thread, my post, and the constant anecdotal reference of people who say they've encountered opposition to the idea. Why is it that your personal wants, or those of people who agree with you, carry more weight than mine or anyone else's opinion? Why can't you respect the opinions of those people who are happy with Space Marines as they have existed now for over 20 years?
And furthermore, where do you draw the line? Should there be furry Space Marines because some people consider that part of their identity? I mean, people have even made art of it, so clearly there is demand.
"Space Marines being all male encourages sexism in the community and leads to death threats/harassment."
Spoiler:
Is a completely manufactured, hypothetical argument which by it's very nature can't be disputed.
Are there women who go to events or game stores and get hit with harassment or sexist comments? Yes. I don't think anyone disputes that. There are gakky people in basically every community.
However there is 0 evidence to say that Space Marines are the causation of that. There isn't even data to prove that said gakky people even play Space Marines in the majority. They could (and given the sheer volume of marines in existence) probably do, but unless you can demonstrate that marines being all male is specifically attracting and empowering gakky people in this hobby then you don't have an argument.
I mean heck, while we're throwing anecdotal evidence around I seem to remember multiple stories from both Dakka and Reddit about people encountering fethwits with Guardsmen painted as literal Nazis, correct iconography and all. And Guard are arguably the MOST diverse faction in the lore (alongside Inquisition in theory)...
"Space Marines being all male makes women feel unwelcome or disinterested in joining the hobby."
Spoiler:
Again, this is all extremely extrapolated anecdotal evidence or hypothetical argument.
Unless you can prove that gender of Space Marines is the primary factor that keeps women out of the hobby then you don't have an argument. Now you can certainly speak to overall representation as contributing factor, but it's pretty hard to argue that Games Workshop isn't doing massively better about that.
We've had a multi-racial mixed gender Guardsmen upgrade sprue. An entire plastic revamp of SoB followed by an entire range expansion. Multiple female special character HQs including Greyfax, Commissar Rayne, two different Rogue Traders, Sgt. "Ripper" Jackson, and Yvraine to name a few. A noticable (and welcome) uptick in novels starring female characters. SoB are increasingly taking a prominent place in the front facing aspect of 40k, from the 9th edition trailer to being in the second wave of the MacFarlane figures and even getting a Marvel comic series.
If you think any of the above is minor then it's hard to take your opinion seriously. I started following 40k in 2004 and have probably around 200 40k novels from then to around 2011. Major female characters were pretty rare in early black library even though the books were probably 40% Guardsmen/Inquisition focused (the remainder being probably 50% Space Marines and 10% xenos).
[Note: These breakdowns are coming purely out of my memory. Yes, this could be verified by going through the back catalog of Black Library but I don't feel like spending an hour on a wiki at the moment...]
And you would be shouted down for spreading wild rumors if you even suggested that SoB could get releases much less make a major appearance in anything for nearly 4-5 entire editions.
I could keep going on given the sheer amount of back and forth argument this topic generates, but I'm going to end on this one point. Someone a few pages back suggested that if the goal was for representation, then rather than changing Space Marines, surely bringing SoB up to the same level of prominence would achieve that. To which multiple people said "no, it has to be female Space Marines" which given all of the other arguments leads me to one conclusion:
That these arguments have absolutely nothing to do with improving female representation and everything to do with opposition to the very concept of a male only faction because it offends certain people apparently. The idea that a female player wouldn't be able to find a faction she likes among ~15 non-marine factions, almost all of which have some degree of female representation (as long as we want to keep beating this horse), simply because marines exist seems pretty ridiculous.
It's like arguing that women couldn't possibly enjoy The Lord of the Rings because all of the members of the Fellowship were male...
And I, for my part, push back on this because I (and anecdotally a lot of people I know) got into 40k and have stuck with it because of the aesthetics and the lore. No matter what words I put it into I doubt "the opposition" will find it satisfactory but to me, adding female space marines changes something intrinsic to their identity that feels like vandalism of the lore driven purely by real world politics that shouldn't have any bearing on fiction. I think the only time 40k has had such a drastic change of a faction's identity (not even because of politics) was Necrons and I still hate that and think it was a mistake.
First off, that is never any acceptable argument in any actual discussion of substance. If you and your friends are discussing the merits of chugging a milkshake while riding a unicycle, fine. If you actually are trying to actually advocate for something though it actually makes your position look worse.
The thing about a fictional toy universe with literally nothing holding it back from making this one change, when indeed it has done much larger, more substantial to "the aesthetics" and lore changes, is it is about on the same tier as having a milkshake while riding a unicycle.
Second, the answer to "why not?" is that in this case female Space Marines are specifically excluded from the fiction by the specific mention in current canon that geneseed, a essential part of space marine creation, is tied to the male zygote.
Somebody should tell Arjac Rockfist, then, because when a female aspirant asked "why not?" he didn't say
"well, you see, the male zygote is a key part of the process"
he said
"oh shoot, I don't know why not. Just tradition, I guess!"
I don't think anyone here need to be convinced of anything.
I mean, it's not like opinions have any relevance to the topic. They're opinions, and for as many as you that don't like it, rest assured many more likes it instead.
So unless you want to sponsor some market research or collect statistical data, those are moot point.
So, to hit the nail on the head: lore-wise there's literally zero arguments to think Marines can't be female. As I said, I suspect that many Blood Angels are genetically female but the process alter them to be essentially post human (neither male or female: you think they're male because you live 38 millennia in the past from the 40k perspective).
Please prove me wrong and point me to precise description of their genitalia: it would be fun if some exist (as I already said, there are XX males and XY female in the real world - read some sport research about that).
We're talking about a make-believe world: is its internally consistent?
If yes, nothing is an issue (and if it is for you, then probably you're kind of a snowflake).
I think GW will push the Sister of Battle, rather than adding female Primaris.
But there are zero reason lore-wise (or identity wise or any other of the funny and really bizarre justification I read here) to criticize the introduction of a new line of models for SM.
Jack Flask wrote:I'm not going to bother replying to anyone specific because there are too many posts and too many threads in this tangled mess to address so I'm just going to lay out my thoughts.
The core issue is that I have yet to see a single convincing argument given as to why female space marines should be added. NOT ONE
Sorry, did you miss every time that we said that women wanted equal representation? Because Sisters ain't equal representation - not even close.
I'll lay it out quite simply: Space Marines are *super* iconic. They're plastered on all 40k media, are given the most attention at every turn, and on top of all of that, just *are* pretty damn cool. They're the ultimate blank slate canvas, perfect for translating just about any historical or thematic idea onto a nice flat surface, with easy to paint models at an accessible level. They're recognisable, they're iconic, and they're cool. Perfect flagship fodder.
Sisters don't have that. Sure, they're cool, and they're recognisable, but has that been capitalised upon? No. Yes, they've had a shot in the arm, but they're still nowhere near the clout that Space Marines have, and have had to decades. Additionally, Sisters suffer from having an almost too-iconic design - their fleur-de-lys imagery and Ecclesiastical aesthetic are so wholly ingrained into their design that to remove it would genuinely be to remove a massive chunk of what the Sisters are. A Sister of Battle without those hallmark elements would look noticeably different, to the point where it may well be irreconcilable. But a Space Marine can look like anything from a fur-clad Space Wolf to a robed Dark Angel, to a bejewelled Blood Angel, or a techno-barbarian Iron Hand, or a tacticool Raptor, or a blood-spattered World Eater, or a Greco-Roman Ultramarine, or even a barebones minimalist Ultramarine. The core Space Marine design is so versatile, so accommodating to diversity that very few factions can come close to matching it. Ergo, Space Marines have a unique selling point over Sisters, irrespective of however popular Sisters might ever be - and that creativity that Space Marines offer may be appealing to people who want their soldiers in a female flavour.
And again, let's look at it this way - the most customisable faction - should they not also be the one to have the most options? So why are they gender locked? From a design perspective, it's frankly baffling.
But, back to the point - representation. Sisters do not, and really *cannot*, offer what Space Marines do. And that's alright, because we shouldn't be expecting Sisters to have to be the faction women go to for representation any more so than men should go to Space Marines for it. Space Marines are just that - Space Marines, the ultimate flagship of Your Hobby - but why is "Your Hobby" exclusive to men, and rejecting of women? Either Space Marines need to lose their status (which, due to cultural inertia and simple weight of people owning Space Marines, ain't going to happen any time soon), or a piece of thirty year old lore, whose existence only serves to justify a marketing decision decades ago, gets revised.
Unless you're of the opinion that women don't need/deserve representation, something's got to happen.
"Why not?"
First off, that is never any acceptable argument in any actual discussion of substance.
I will say that "why not" is nearly always accompanied with "why are you holding a piece of lore more dear to you than the personal accounts of real life people who feel that it excuses exclusion against them".
Second, the answer to "why not?" is that in this case female Space Marines are specifically excluded from the fiction by the specific mention in current canon that geneseed, a essential part of space marine creation, is tied to the male zygote. If you think that that is arbitrary congratulations, all fiction is arbitrary.
Yes. All fiction *is* arbitrary - see Cawl or the Primaris. Hell, see how that lore only exists to justify why GW didn't sell women Astartes. Thank you for working that out.
The question is "why should this fiction still be maintained, considering all the harm that it causes by people citing it"? Is lore more important to you than real people?
"Well I want it/I've heard someone else say they want it, so you need to respect that person's desires/opinion."
There are clearly people who are also not in favor of it as evidenced by this thread, my post, and the constant anecdotal reference of people who say they've encountered opposition to the idea.
And what have been their reasons why not?
"The lore is more valuable to me than your feelings as someone who feels excluded."
"I don't see how you can feel excluded/want representation, so I'm going to ignore your feelings."
"I think it's okay to exclude women from my gaming group." (And these were all real comments made in this thread, by the way)
I would also hazard to guess that everyone who has vocally opposed women Space Marines is not a woman. I'm not saying that the voices of non-women are irrelevant here, but maybe, when it comes to women talking about things they like, maybe women's voices should be the most prominent.
Why is it that your personal wants, or those of people who agree with you, carry more weight than mine or anyone else's opinion? Why can't you respect the opinions of those people who are happy with Space Marines as they have existed now for over 20 years?
Because those opinions quite literally come at the cost of making other people feeling excluded - I can't believe we're having to discuss if "hey, can I have some equal representation" and "how dare you retcon some fiction in a made up universe" are even close to equivalent complaints. On the counterpoint, why on earth would some people being allowed to have women's heads on their Astartes exclude you, and make you feel excluded from the community?
And furthermore, where do you draw the line? Should there be furry Space Marines because some people consider that part of their identity? I mean, people have even made art of it, so clearly there is demand.
You're comparing women to furries?
"Space Marines being all male encourages sexism in the community and leads to death threats/harassment."
Is a completely manufactured, hypothetical argument which by it's very nature can't be disputed.
So, you're just ignoring complaints because you don't want to deal with them? Cool, good to know.
Are there women who go to events or game stores and get hit with harassment or sexist comments? Yes. I don't think anyone disputes that. There are gakky people in basically every community.
However there is 0 evidence to say that Space Marines are the causation of that.
No-one said that. Space Marines *aren't* the causation. But the tacit endorsement and continued impression of a male-dominated hobby without any representation of women in the flagship faction do absolutely no favours in promoting a diverse playing environment.
And I'll just ask, would there be anything wrong with promoting a diverse playing environment?
unless you can demonstrate that marines being all male is specifically attracting and empowering gakky people in this hobby then you don't have an argument.
It very much *does* empower gakky people to drive away people who use their creativity to make women Astartes. It empowers them by letting them cite "the Lore", and devalue other people's work and creativity, oftentimes to seek representation or expression in a hobby where none such canonically exists, which is certainly gakky behaviour.
I mean heck, while we're throwing anecdotal evidence around I seem to remember multiple stories from both Dakka and Reddit about people encountering fethwits with Guardsmen painted as literal Nazis, correct iconography and all. And Guard are arguably the MOST diverse faction in the lore (alongside Inquisition in theory)...
You're absolutely right - there's been all many of 40k factions (mostly Imperial) portrayed literally as fascists. But I have no idea what's got to do with diversity or this topic whatsoever. The Imperial Guard being diverse (in lore, not in practice) has nothing to do with chuds painting them in fascist iconography - why did you feel the need to bring that up?
"Space Marines being all male makes women feel unwelcome or disinterested in joining the hobby."
Again, this is all extremely extrapolated anecdotal evidence or hypothetical argument.
No, it's very much real, You just don't believe it.
It's no different to me claiming "everyone saying that they value the sanctity of the lore is just anecdotal and hypothetical, no-one's really saying that". Now, I *do* question if that's all they're asking for when they call for the sanctity of the lore, and I'm more than happy to argue that the "sanctity of the lore" literally doesn't exist, but I'm not sure that works compared to women literally giving their opinions.
Unless you can prove that gender of Space Marines is the primary factor that keeps women out of the hobby then you don't have an argument.
No-one said it was the primary factor at all. Only that MANY WOMEN have been very vocal about wanting women Astartes for representative purposes. If you want to ignore them, that's your bias, not mine.
Now you can certainly speak to overall representation as contributing factor, but it's pretty hard to argue that Games Workshop isn't doing massively better about that.
We've had a multi-racial mixed gender Guardsmen upgrade sprue. An entire plastic revamp of SoB followed by an entire range expansion. Multiple female special character HQs including Greyfax, Commissar Rayne, two different Rogue Traders, Sgt. "Ripper" Jackson, and Yvraine to name a few. A noticable (and welcome) uptick in novels starring female characters. SoB are increasingly taking a prominent place in the front facing aspect of 40k, from the 9th edition trailer to being in the second wave of the MacFarlane figures and even getting a Marvel comic series.
And none of that comes close to tipping the iceberg that is Space Marines. Space Marines are still the most dominant GW creation, and nothing, not even Stormcast, have come close to matching their market image. No matter how many awesome women sculpts in limited edition, single model clampacks or comics are made, Space Marines are still the most iconic faction. And that won't change for a *very* long time.
Furthermore, I yet again mention that Space Marines offer something that Sisters simply cannot - freedom and customisation.
If you think any of the above is minor then it's hard to take your opinion seriously.
If you don't see the market dominance of Space Marines, I can't either.
I started following 40k in 2004 and have probably around 200 40k novels from then to around 2011. Major female characters were pretty rare in early black library even though the books were probably 40% Guardsmen/Inquisition focused (the remainder being probably 50% Space Marines and 10% xenos).
[Note: These breakdowns are coming purely out of my memory. Yes, this could be verified by going through the back catalog of Black Library but I don't feel like spending an hour on a wiki at the moment...]
So, you're using made up statistics, and ignoring that the (very good) advances in representation still don't come anywhere near actual equality and fair representation.
Yes, things are better. They're not good enough though, and if you can't understand why, maybe you should listen to people who *do* feel under-represented.
I could keep going on given the sheer amount of back and forth argument this topic generates, but I'm going to end on this one point. Someone a few pages back suggested that if the goal was for representation, then rather than changing Space Marines, surely bringing SoB up to the same level of prominence would achieve that. To which multiple people said "no, it has to be female Space Marines" which given all of the other arguments leads me to one conclusion:
That these arguments have absolutely nothing to do with improving female representation and everything to do with opposition to the very concept of a male only faction because it offends certain people apparently. The idea that a female player wouldn't be able to find a faction she likes among ~15 non-marine factions, almost all of which have some degree of female representation (as long as we want to keep beating this horse), simply because marines exist seems pretty ridiculous.
There's nothing wrong with the concept of a male-only faction. The problems are:
- The Male-Only Factions are given the most attention, by several orders of magnitude.
- The Male-Only Factions (minus Custodes) are the most customisable, and have the greatest range of options available to them.
- The Male-Only Factions have the flimsiest reasons around as to even *why* they're all male. Sisters are aesthetically essentially women, the nun iconography paramount to all Sororitas design and aesthetic. Space Marines have such a hodgepodge of design influences that the whole "warrior monk" thing that many people cite as integral simply doesn't exist across the whole faction. Sure, Black Templars and Dark Angels might still fit that, but Space Wolves? Carcharadons? Ultramarines? They don't have the same design influences, and I've never thought of "male" as integral to their design philosophy - the only justification comes from lore, which exists only to justify outdated consumer decisions.
- Saying "but you could go play X different faction if you wanted Y" ignores that they didn't *want* to play Y Faction, they wanted to play X faction. It'd be like saying "well, I know you like vikings, but I'm sorry, I can't let you make these Tau viking inspired, because of the lore. But you can play Space Wolves!" - it ignores that I never wanted to play Space Wolves, I wanted to play Tau - and why on earth is a piece of outdated fiction being treated as more important than my representation as a *human being*?
It's like arguing that women couldn't possibly enjoy The Lord of the Rings because all of the members of the Fellowship were male...
You literally have no idea what representation means, do you?
And I, for my part, push back on this because I (and anecdotally a lot of people I know) got into 40k and have stuck with it because of the aesthetics and the lore.
So why are you still around? The lore's definitely changed since you arrived in this hobby, so if the lore changing is such a dealbreaker, why are you still here? Or is it *that particular* bit of lore that you need? If so, why? Why is "women can't be Space Marines" the dealbreaker for you?
adding female space marines changes something intrinsic to their identity that feels like vandalism of the lore driven purely by real world politics that shouldn't have any bearing on fiction
Rather, I believe that fiction should have no bearing on what someone chooses to do with their toy soldier dollies. What changes for you, by adding women Astartes - fairly simple question.
Also, being a women isn't political. Sorry to tell you.
. I think the only time 40k has had such a drastic change of a faction's identity (not even because of politics) was Necrons and I still hate that and think it was a mistake.
I must assume that you don't remember when Space Marines were mixed gender then?
Are peeps still denying that women/non-whites/trans folk face harassment and threat purely because they exist in the hobby? Do said peeps follow any of these people hobbyists on social media and see the s**t they have to put up with?
Now hold up... furry space marines might be justifiable. There’s a damn cat furry planet in the lore and space wolf wulfen are like half way there anyways, and god knows what other abhumans exist... and there’s been NO lore to explain why cat furry planet dudes can’t be space marines (to my knowledge, I welcome any corrections to that particular statement). Does the idea of furry space marines make people feel uncomfortable? XD
I firmly believe that it would take a lot of pressure from the community to make advancements or changes to the space marine lore to include female space marines. I don’t think we will see that sort of pressure in the decade unless players start slapping those models on the tables and maybe post them to GW’s Facebook posts... maybe if they see the vitriol first hand that it brings and having to constantly shut it down they’ll make the changes needed.
Gert wrote: Are peeps still denying that women/non-whites/trans folk face harassment and threat purely because they exist in the hobby? Do said peeps follow any of these people hobbyists on social media and see the s**t they have to put up with?
I don't see how that has anything to do with Space Marines.
Gert wrote: Are peeps still denying that women/non-whites/trans folk face harassment and threat purely because they exist in the hobby? Do said peeps follow any of these people hobbyists on social media and see the s**t they have to put up with?
I don't see how that has anything to do with Space Marines.
I wouldn't, save that some folks here in this thread have been saying that there's no exclusionary behaviours or feelings of harassment* in the hobby that would prompt people to seek representation in the Space Marine range, and that those people are just attention-seeking, or narcissistic, or some other reason that means they don't need to reconsider their position.
When the topic is about women Space Marines, and how many people's reason for having them is because they feel excluded and harassed, and that pushing for representation in the flagship range would lend them a degree of legitimacy, I think it is a relevant topic to bring up, especially when such voices are being so callously dismissed.
*this is, of course, after they ignore the voices of people who do feel excluded and harassed
macluvin wrote: Now hold up... furry space marines might be justifiable. There’s a damn cat furry planet in the lore and space wolf wulfen are like half way there anyways, and god knows what other abhumans exist... and there’s been NO lore to explain why cat furry planet dudes can’t be space marines (to my knowledge, I welcome any corrections to that particular statement). Does the idea of furry space marines make people feel uncomfortable? XD
I literally built a furry marine chapter... for Slaanesh. Which, being both furries and Slaaneshi, happily and gleefully includes all genders, including binary, nonbinary, imaginary, quadratic and hexadecimal. I even had some help from the SO in sculpting STLs for making male and intersexed furry Daemonettes for the associated Daemon army, which looks like you're being chased down by a furry convention wielding machetes.
That might very well make some people uncomfortable. I'm practically counting on it. :3
Gert wrote: Are peeps still denying that women/non-whites/trans folk face harassment and threat purely because they exist in the hobby? Do said peeps follow any of these people hobbyists on social media and see the s**t they have to put up with?
I don't see how that has anything to do with Space Marines.
I wouldn't, save that some folks here in this thread have been saying that there's no exclusionary behaviours or feelings of harassment* in the hobby that would prompt people to seek representation in the Space Marine range, and that those people are just attention-seeking, or narcissistic, or some other reason that means they don't need to reconsider their position.
When the topic is about women Space Marines, and how many people's reason for having them is because they feel excluded and harassed, and that pushing for representation in the flagship range would lend them a degree of legitimacy, I think it is a relevant topic to bring up, especially when such voices are being so callously dismissed.
*this is, of course, after they ignore the voices of people who do feel excluded and harassed
From my point of view, the important detail is "feelings of exclusion/harassment IN the hobby"
or
"feelings of exclusion/harassment BECAUSE of the hobby"
Because as we should all know, donkey caves gonna donkey cave, probably regardless of the fandom of choice.
Gert wrote: Are peeps still denying that women/non-whites/trans folk face harassment and threat purely because they exist in the hobby? Do said peeps follow any of these people hobbyists on social media and see the s**t they have to put up with?
#1 Is it "purely because they exist in the hobby", or do people have an issue with someone saying "Hi fellow gaming enthusiast, nice hobby, how bout we remake it in my image?" Not to say that's always the case. In my neighborhood there's no visible problems, and we see people of diverse genders and nationalities enjoying the hobby together as it is. I'm sure somewhere there are toxic environments, but it's not a problem for all places everywhere, nor does it follow that making female space marines (who in all reality would probability would emerge from the process all but indistinguishable from males given the size/aggression enhancement which most certainly would involve enough testosterone to make any woman into a trans male)
Gert wrote: Are peeps still denying that women/non-whites/trans folk face harassment and threat purely because they exist in the hobby? Do said peeps follow any of these people hobbyists on social media and see the s**t they have to put up with?
#1 Is it "purely because they exist in the hobby", or do people have an issue with someone saying "Hi fellow gaming enthusiast, nice hobby, how bout we remake it in my image?" Not to say that's always the case. In my neighborhood there's no visible problems, and we see people of diverse genders and nationalities enjoying the hobby together as it is. I'm sure somewhere there are toxic environments, but it's not a problem for all places everywhere, nor does it follow that making female space marines (who in all reality would probability would emerge from the process all but indistinguishable from males given the size/aggression enhancement which most certainly would involve enough testosterone to make any woman into a trans male)
#2 Most assuredly not.
I am seriously glad that you don't have to see the stuff that occurs in this hobby every day. I'm glad you have that PRIVILEGE. If you have a truly diverse community, and none of them have ever spoken up about their problems with anti/bias/discrimination, it's very likely they don't feel safe or confident telling you about those problems. Case in point, it's not their problem for not telling you, it's your problem for not seeing it and addressing it.
Gert wrote: Are peeps still denying that women/non-whites/trans folk face harassment and threat purely because they exist in the hobby? Do said peeps follow any of these people hobbyists on social media and see the s**t they have to put up with?
#1 Is it "purely because they exist in the hobby", or do people have an issue with someone saying "Hi fellow gaming enthusiast, nice hobby, how bout we remake it in my image?" Not to say that's always the case. In my neighborhood there's no visible problems, and we see people of diverse genders and nationalities enjoying the hobby together as it is. I'm sure somewhere there are toxic environments, but it's not a problem for all places everywhere, nor does it follow that making female space marines (who in all reality would probability would emerge from the process all but indistinguishable from males given the size/aggression enhancement which most certainly would involve enough testosterone to make any woman into a trans male)
#2 Most assuredly not.
I am seriously glad that you don't have to see the stuff that occurs in this hobby every day. I'm glad you have that PRIVILEGE. If you have a truly diverse community, and none of them have ever spoken up about their problems with anti/bias/discrimination, it's very likely they don't feel safe or confident telling you about those problems. Case in point, it's not their problem for not telling you, it's your problem for not seeing it and addressing it.
Or it may be a healthy and diverse community where people respect each other. It may be that there isn't a lurking shadow of oppression hiding under every table or in the heart of every other gamer. Half of my dungeons and dragons players are young women, and we've introduced them to the warhammer gaming system. No one has told them they are oppressed, no one has told them to find patriarchy to smash, and as a result we all have a great time together without needing to hunt for or construct oppressors, heretics, or enemies in our community to crusade and signal virtue against.
Also, the term privilege is terribly misused these days. Good communities and fellowship is meticulously cultivated through healthy social exercise not legislated/mandated, and certainly not by applying critical theories to everything and everyone to find evil.
As far as "it's not the hobby, it's the donkey caves in the hobby" goes...
if there's a huge number of donkey caves in the hobby... we as non-donkey caves really have to ask ourselves why we're so welcoming to donkey caves that they congregate to our hobby in large numbers...
Rihgu wrote: As far as "it's not the hobby, it's the donkey caves in the hobby" goes...
if there's a huge number of donkey caves in the hobby... we as non-donkey caves really have to ask ourselves why we're so welcoming to donkey caves that they congregate to our hobby in large numbers...
In effect, there's not really a difference.
Ohohoh no, I don't think I can go along with that logic. I've played a number of online shooters and the donkey-caveness level is pretty high. But I wouldn't say that's the fault of the game. Hell, the level of donkey-caveness on Twitter is pretty high.
insaniak wrote:Or a woman who feels excluded by the game's major faction not including women.
If you personally don't feel that it sends that message, that's fine for you... but it's not really up to you to decide whether or not other people feel welcome, is it?
So basically you just wanna push wahmen to the forefront just because they're wahmen to make yourself feel better and earn brownie points. Right-o.
No, he wants to include women in the game's most visible faction because that sends a message that the game is inclusive. Wanting the game to be inclusive isn't to make us feel better, it's to make the people who currently feel excluded feel better.
If that makes you feel "excluded" then I'm sorry, that's a you problem. And inclusivity among the players is a more than admirable go - forced "inclusivity" that goes against a setting's established lore is borderline abominable and one of the quickest ways to kill said setting. If people feel that strongly about things looking like they do, they have options.
Gert wrote:Congrats on making the worst argument so far in this thread.
Is it narcissistic to want to be treated equally? Is it narcissistic to not be hounded of social media because you dared to be female/black/asian/middle eastern/lgbt+?
This isn't about people not liking SM, it's about making the PRIMARY PRODUCT of the 40k range more welcoming to non-straight, cis, white-male hobbyists. So far the options for female hobbyists getting armies that represent them are:
- Female-only faction who are religious fanatics and only exist in lore to get around a poorly worded law.
- Space Elves who are the definition of NSFW.
- Space Elves with a model range older than many players.
- T'au who are by design homogenous.
- A tiny selection of minis in otherwise male-dominated factions.
Not a single one of these comes close to the market presence of SM.
If people can empathise with others so well, why is racism/sexism/transphobia/homophobia/bigotry so widespread? Any time a non-white male character does literally anything that isn't dying or getting saved by a white male character in any 40k media, the vocal chuds scream about it across the internet.
That is the image put across of Warhammer players and is the main reason people leave the hobby if they aren't straight, cis, white and male.
1: His argument was perfectly fine. Whether you like the facts he stated or not are irrelevant.
2: Imagine thinking that people can ONLY be represented by things like their genitalia rather than identifying with the faction for their lore and such.
3: The marketability of SM is kind of a vicious cycle far beyond the scope of what's being discussed here, tbh.
4: "why is racism/sexism/transphobia/homophobia/bigotry so widespread?" It isn't.
5: "Any time a non-white male character does literally anything that isn't dying or getting saved by a white male character in any 40k media, the vocal chuds scream about it across the internet." Why are you worried about what "chuds" think? And as for why people have issues with that, it's because this kinda of BS has been forced into almost every other franchise at this point. "X is a super powerful wahmen who's powerful because magic vagina power and if you don't like her it's not because she's a gak character it's because you're an istophobe", a la Rey. It used to be a natural thing where a writer would do things because it felt right at the time or that's just how the character was - nowadays it's turned into a game of trying to score brownie points with political cultists who, for some ungodly reason, people give the time of day to.And, quite frankly, this is a major part of the problem - no one's complaining about the Sororitas being all-female, but having an all-male faction is the problem? It's an absolute fething double standard.
6: "and is the main reason people leave the hobby if they aren't straight, cis, white and male." Citation needed.
Rihgu wrote: As far as "it's not the hobby, it's the donkey caves in the hobby" goes...
if there's a huge number of donkey caves in the hobby... we as non-donkey caves really have to ask ourselves why we're so welcoming to donkey caves that they congregate to our hobby in large numbers...
In effect, there's not really a difference.
Ohohoh no, I don't think I can go along with that logic. I've played a number of online shooters and the donkey-caveness level is pretty high. But I wouldn't say that's the fault of the game. Hell, the level of donkey-caveness on Twitter is pretty high.
See, this I can't stand - the original quote. Trying to shift the blame onto the players who just want the game they invest in to be the game they invested in.
I dunno if you have any idea how you come across, but that's the kind of ugly talk that makes me want to, I don't know, make the Emperor trans and gender swap half the Primarchs out of sheer spite. I had no desire to do this 30 minutes ago.
First, if the choice is between inclusivity and the perceived sanctity of 'the precious setting' that GW sure as hell hasn't kept sacred, the former wins, every time.
Second, how does it actually damage the setting? Like, either 40K has significant gender themes or it doesn't. I don't think it does - it's about stuff sucking, mostly - but if it does, then the Space Marines male-only existence can really only be justified as the Imperium being misogynist and this explicitly being one more dystopian aspect of their rule.
If it doesn't, then surely there's no problem in the existence of female/trans/whatever Marines and the best thing to do is include as many genders as possible in every faction with so much as the concept of a gender?
If that makes you feel "excluded" then I'm sorry, that's a you problem.
When a company is trying to sell a product, and potential customers feel like that product is deliberately unwelcoming, that's not just a 'you' problem, that's a marketing problem.
...forced "inclusivity" that goes against a setting's established lore is borderline abominable and one of the quickest ways to kill said setting.
Having women exist in a fantasy setting is not 'forced' inclusivity.
Women make up roughly half of the population. Women also enjoy fantasy and sci fi stories, movies and games. Not including them in a way that is equally as interesting to them as the male characters are to the male customers makes for a far more 'forced' setting than including them does.
Imagine thinking that people can ONLY be represented by things like their genitalia rather than identifying with the faction for their lore and such.
Yes, please do. If we all imagine that, then we'll be halfway there.
And no, that doesn't mean that this sort of representation matters to everyone, as has been discussed multiple times so far. But whether or not you personally think it is or is not a problem, it is a thing. Not just because people need the same genitals to relate, but simply because their exclusion makes it harder to relate to the setting.
Rihgu wrote: As far as "it's not the hobby, it's the donkey caves in the hobby" goes...
if there's a huge number of donkey caves in the hobby... we as non-donkey caves really have to ask ourselves why we're so welcoming to donkey caves that they congregate to our hobby in large numbers...
In effect, there's not really a difference.
Ohohoh no, I don't think I can go along with that logic. I've played a number of online shooters and the donkey-caveness level is pretty high. But I wouldn't say that's the fault of the game. Hell, the level of donkey-caveness on Twitter is pretty high.
I've heard the n word a lot less on online shooters (outside the occasional troll) and have seen a lot less blatant misogyny on shooters since they opened up the models and skins for players to females and minorities across different factions (both protagonist and antagonist). In fact I played CS:GO and have witnessed a trend for female gamers to be booted the moment their voices came through the mic. I've also heard terrible, terrible things said to them. Meanwhile, in call of duty, the lobbies are SIGNIFICANTLY less toxic. And they have FEMALE and MINORITY skins for ALL FACTIONS. So the lovely point you brought up, actually reinforces the point that REPRESENTATION MATTERS. Also, as of recent updates and skins in CS:GO, the same trends happened with the introduction of female skins for different factions as well. These changes made those donkey caves less comfortable in that community, when they are forced to be confronted with their own misogyny. Such changes tends to make those sorts very uncomfortable and especially uncomfortable to be such donkeys.
Rihgu wrote: As far as "it's not the hobby, it's the donkey caves in the hobby" goes...
if there's a huge number of donkey caves in the hobby... we as non-donkey caves really have to ask ourselves why we're so welcoming to donkey caves that they congregate to our hobby in large numbers...
In effect, there's not really a difference.
Ohohoh no, I don't think I can go along with that logic. I've played a number of online shooters and the donkey-caveness level is pretty high. But I wouldn't say that's the fault of the game. Hell, the level of donkey-caveness on Twitter is pretty high.
See, this I can't stand - the original quote. Trying to shift the blame onto the players who just want the game they invest in to be the game they invested in.
The game they invested in was very much shaped by the misogyny inherent in the time and common culture of the 80's. Successful companies follow trends and the trend of the time was that misogyny was a lot less taboo at the time. People still generally considered women at the time as meant to play a submissive role in society; there were almost no women in any sort of leadership position at the time. This part of the lore you cling to was indirectly shaped from that part of the culture of the 80's and 90's.
Des702 wrote: As long as they don't sexulize the armour I don't see how this would really hurt marines.
I don’t know why someone couldn’t just buy a female head and slap it on a Space Marines body right now? The lore?
My Necrons are all female except the named ones.
Because there's no fething human female heads in the GW range, maybe.
My bad. I thought the Stormcast female heads would fit on a Space Marine perfect. I'll have to keep looking.
Oh you can. Try it some time and post it all over the internet and you'll understand the point that is being made by several in this forum. Some that have been keeping up with this discussion have some lovely recommendations for the best places to see that effect most effectively.
Kepora
If that makes you feel "excluded" then I'm sorry, that's a you problem. And inclusivity among the players is a more than admirable go - forced "inclusivity" that goes against a setting's established lore is borderline abominable and one of the quickest ways to kill said setting. If people feel that strongly about things looking like they do, they have options.
I like how you are excluding people that feel excluded... Then act like GW adding a bit that said that Cawl unlocked females for the Astartes candidacy is forcing inclusivity on you. You are free to have an all male space marine force; nobody is going to send you hate mail for choosing to represent your space marines as a boys club. What is being asked for is why are people so opposed to GW endorsing and protecting the creativity of those who wish to have their chapters/warbands/whatever include female space marines? These people actually do get hate mail and death threats in very open forums. They are way too comfortable doing this in basically broad daylight. And their number 1 justification is "mah lore!" Imagine if the only change is you get one more androgynous/feminine head in each sprue. Maybe it replaces one of the optional heads. You still can model an all male force... or even just an alternate head sprue for these new candidates. Or that now we have one paragraph of text in the codices for spess mahrines that states that Cawl opened it up to female candidacy through crafty bio-engineering. Because making spacier marinier space marines that are even more mary and sue than before is preferable to some, if not a few space marines at some point having been 8-10 year old girls in the program...
And also...
Some arguments here seem to be trying to claim that "if some space marines are women then none of mine can be men!"... And you know what? I respect some of you deciding "I like all male space marines more than the idea of coed space marine chapters." That's your opinion. That's your taste. You are entitled to that. I feel like that should be sufficient an explanation. It would be a mutual respect at that point; "Alright you prefer all male space marines because that is your taste. I would like for female space marines to be supported in the lore." Then we can disagree; may the better faction win at that point. (Who are we kidding GW won't mess with the formula for the magic money maker button that much...) But that isn't what you go for. Instead you engage in erasing other's experiences. You exclude people on the basis that their feelings of exclusion don't matter to you. You choose the absolute worst hills to die on. "I like this please don't take it away from me" is much more respectable than what I've seen. That statement is respectable and honest. Some may question exactly why you prefer it that way, and I don't think the reasoning should matter that much. But, asserting that it is the only way or the end all be all for you in particular, without requiring you to make any changes to your models or how YOUR dudes are in THEIR background while trying to act like it would is illogical and contemptible. "my chapter doesn't take female candidates; they believe men are better suited, or they have superstitions that believe that testicles improve the odds of successful implantation and space marinification." "My chapter is a traditionalist; marines have always taken from male only applicants until Cawl unlocked geneseed for females, and they being distrustful of this update have opted to continue doing what they are doing." It's called a compromise...
Rihgu wrote: As far as "it's not the hobby, it's the donkey caves in the hobby" goes...
if there's a huge number of donkey caves in the hobby... we as non-donkey caves really have to ask ourselves why we're so welcoming to donkey caves that they congregate to our hobby in large numbers...
In effect, there's not really a difference.
Ohohoh no, I don't think I can go along with that logic. I've played a number of online shooters and the donkey-caveness level is pretty high. But I wouldn't say that's the fault of the game. Hell, the level of donkey-caveness on Twitter is pretty high.
I've heard the n word a lot less on online shooters (outside the occasional troll) and have seen a lot less blatant misogyny on shooters since they opened up the models and skins for players to females and minorities across different factions (both protagonist and antagonist). In fact I played CS:GO and have witnessed a trend for female gamers to be booted the moment their voices came through the mic. I've also heard terrible, terrible things said to them. Meanwhile, in call of duty, the lobbies are SIGNIFICANTLY less toxic. And they have FEMALE and MINORITY skins for ALL FACTIONS. So the lovely point you brought up, actually reinforces the point that REPRESENTATION MATTERS. Also, as of recent updates and skins in CS:GO, the same trends happened with the introduction of female skins for different factions as well. These changes made those donkey caves less comfortable in that community, when they are forced to be confronted with their own misogyny. Such changes tends to make those sorts very uncomfortable and especially uncomfortable to be such donkeys.
^ Alright that's interesting if it's true. Plus correlation =/= causality. Can you source some information on that? I'd love to take a look.
1: His argument was perfectly fine. Whether you like the facts he stated or not are irrelevant.
2: Imagine thinking that people can ONLY be represented by things like their genitalia rather than identifying with the faction for their lore and such.
3: The marketability of SM is kind of a vicious cycle far beyond the scope of what's being discussed here, tbh.
4: "why is racism/sexism/transphobia/homophobia/bigotry so widespread?" It isn't.
5: "Any time a non-white male character does literally anything that isn't dying or getting saved by a white male character in any 40k media, the vocal chuds scream about it across the internet." Why are you worried about what "chuds" think? And as for why people have issues with that, it's because this kinda of BS has been forced into almost every other franchise at this point. "X is a super powerful wahmen who's powerful because magic vagina power and if you don't like her it's not because she's a gak character it's because you're an istophobe", a la Rey. It used to be a natural thing where a writer would do things because it felt right at the time or that's just how the character was - nowadays it's turned into a game of trying to score brownie points with political cultists who, for some ungodly reason, people give the time of day to.And, quite frankly, this is a major part of the problem - no one's complaining about the Sororitas being all-female, but having an all-male faction is the problem? It's an absolute fething double standard.
6: "and is the main reason people leave the hobby if they aren't straight, cis, white and male." Citation needed.
1 - "Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's idealised self-image and attributes." Wanting your sex/gender/race represented in media when it is routinely under-represented isn't Narcissism.
2 - True, they can't only be represented by that. But most men don't use a female character to represent themselves so why should a woman be forced to if they want to play SM?
3 - It's not beyond the scope when the discussion is SM.
4 - Cool, nice denial there chief. Why don't you check out some non-white male hobbyists on social media and see how often they get harrased and threatened for daring to do warhammer.
5 - The "Chuds" are the very vocal minority who are the face of this hobby on the Internet which is where people go to find out about said hobby. If a woman were to see 20 posts saying "stop making female models" and 1 saying "make more female models", chances are they are going to find a different hobby.
6 - Again, go and find the people who have been harassed off of their platforms because they dared to be in the hobby as women/trans/non-white.
Insectum7 wrote:From my point of view, the important detail is "feelings of exclusion/harassment IN the hobby"
or
"feelings of exclusion/harassment BECAUSE of the hobby"
Because as we should all know, donkey caves gonna donkey cave, probably regardless of the fandom of choice.
Perhaps those donkey caves were always going to be donkey caves - but when they're using the lore as an excuse to do it, maybe the lore needs to be amended.
It's about stripping back any sense of legitimacy they have to make those comments - I've seen far too many outright toxic behaviours "justified" by said lore, and frankly, if it comes between supporting people in the real world, or some lines of text, I'll choose real people every time.
Am I saying that the hobby itself is inherently exclusionary? Not exactly, no. But do some people use material in the hobby to justify/provide a cover for their exclusionary behaviours? Yes, absolutely.
RegularGuy wrote:#1 Is it "purely because they exist in the hobby", or do people have an issue with someone saying "Hi fellow gaming enthusiast, nice hobby, how bout we remake it in my image?"
Asking to see yourself represented is "remaking it in my image"? Adding women Astartes doesn't stop you having male ones.
In my neighborhood there's no visible problems, and we see people of diverse genders and nationalities enjoying the hobby together as it is.
In which case, you are either lucky, and I'm thankful for you, or you don't see the problems (so I do appreciate you saying "visible").
But not all communities are your community, and I'm very aware that in the wider community as a whole, it is an overwhelmingly white male hobby, and women/transfolk are often sidelined, or left feeling uncomfortable. I don't mean to call *your* community that, but you must understand that people *do* have legitimate grievances, yes?
I'm sure somewhere there are toxic environments, but it's not a problem for all places everywhere
Let's flip this comment around: "I'm sure there are non-toxic environments, but that's not a blessing that all places everywhere have".
If there are communities with issues, should we not look at helping them?
RegularGuy wrote:Or it may be a healthy and diverse community where people respect each other. It may be that there isn't a lurking shadow of oppression hiding under every table or in the heart of every other gamer.
No-one said there was. But you're a fool to keep sweeping the actual testimony of people who *do* have issues under the rug like this.
There's nothing wrong with saying "yes, there are parts of the community with severe issues", because if your community was a good part, we wouldn't be talking about yours.
Half of my dungeons and dragons players are young women, and we've introduced them to the warhammer gaming system. No one has told them they are oppressed, no one has told them to find patriarchy to smash, and as a result we all have a great time together without needing to hunt for or construct oppressors, heretics, or enemies in our community to crusade and signal virtue against.
Again, great job at painting the criticism that many marginalised groups have as something they were brainwashed to have. You're doing an excellent job in painting a picture that you *do* foster a supportive environment /s.
If *your* group is fine, that's fine. But not all groups are. And you sweeping those testimonies under the rug and acting like it's not sincere, that it's all some kind of manufactured outrage is part of the problem.
Good communities and fellowship is meticulously cultivated through healthy social exercise
Like feeling represented and valued?
Kepora wrote:If that makes you feel "excluded" then I'm sorry, that's a you problem.
No, if a setting makes you feel excluded, then it's a failure in marketing.
And inclusivity among the players is a more than admirable
And how can you promote said inclusivity in the playerbase? Oh yeah, by reflecting it in the setting.
forced "inclusivity" that goes against a setting's established lore is borderline abominable
Why?
and one of the quickest ways to kill said setting.
How?
If people feel that strongly about things looking like they do, they have options.
Such as? If I want women Space Marines, how can I have women Space Marines, that will be as legitimate as any other Space Marine Chapter, without having women Space Marines in the lore?
Imagine thinking that people can ONLY be represented by things like their genitalia rather than identifying with the faction for their lore and such.
No-one mentioned genitalia. Presenting as a woman is more than genitalia.
Also, exactly - identifying with their lore. And Space Marines being an all-boys club is part of their lore that many people don't identify with, because it's a stupid hangover from a marketing decision decades ago.
The marketability of SM is kind of a vicious cycle far beyond the scope of what's being discussed here, tbh.
But you can't deny that Space Marines are the most marketable.
"why is racism/sexism/transphobia/homophobia/bigotry so widespread?" It isn't.
I'm glad that you, the ultimate arbiter on these matter, can tell us this! Tell me, when will you cure cancer, seeing as you apparently seem to have single-handedly solved bigotry?
"Any time a non-white male character does literally anything that isn't dying or getting saved by a white male character in any 40k media, the vocal chuds scream about it across the internet." Why are you worried about what "chuds" think?
Because not everyone has the priviledge of being able to ignore comments that devalue who they are as people? I genuinely can't believe that, when presented with a very clear cut case of "a chud is being an ass to someone, and they're upset", you blame the victim for getting upset.
And you wonder why maybe I don't exactly take your word that bigotry doesn't exist.
And as for why people have issues with that, it's because this kinda of BS has been forced into almost every other franchise at this point.
"Forced"? Having women exist is "forcing" now?
"X is a super powerful wahmen who's powerful because magic vagina power and if you don't like her it's not because she's a gak character it's because you're an istophobe", a la Rey.
But no-one's calling for that. People are literally just saying "hey, those men look pretty cool. Can women do that too?" - no one-upmanship, no escalation of power, just asking to be *equal*.
Why have you got an issue with what I describe?
It used to be a natural thing where a writer would do things because it felt right at the time or that's just how the character was - nowadays it's turned into a game of trying to score brownie points with political cultists who, for some ungodly reason, people give the time of day to.
So you also think that removing women Space Marines was a stupid idea, because it was only done to score points with political cultists and to justify not selling frankly dire looking models?
Space Marines aren't all male because of some big "felt right at the time" or stylistic choice. It was a marketing decision from decades ago. I don't know why this is considered the cornerstone of what Space Marines are.
And, quite frankly, this is a major part of the problem - no one's complaining about the Sororitas being all-female, but having an all-male faction is the problem?
If Sororitas were nearly half as influential as Astartes were, it wouldn't be. The problem isn't that there's an all-male faction. It's that the all-male faction is pretty much the only faction that seems to matter.
It's an absolute fething double standard.
You're right - women being excluded from the most dominant faction in the game *is* a double standard.
See, this I can't stand - the original quote. Trying to shift the blame onto the players who just want the game they invest in to be the game they invested in.
The game isn't the game you invested in though. Depending on when you joined, you either had to handle Necron lore changes, Primaris additions, the additions of whole new factions and ways of playing the game, Knights, aircraft, whole statline changes, and if you started early enough, women Space Marines being axed.
Why is "women can't be Space Marines" the part of the game you invested you heavily into? Why would changing that ruin the hobby for you?
insaniak wrote:
...forced "inclusivity" that goes against a setting's established lore is borderline abominable and one of the quickest ways to kill said setting.
Having women exist in a fantasy setting is not 'forced' inclusivity.
Women make up roughly half of the population. Women also enjoy fantasy and sci fi stories, movies and games. Not including them in a way that is equally as interesting to them as the male characters are to the male customers makes for a far more 'forced' setting than including them does.
Absolutely. Having women or minority groups represented isn't political, it's not forced, it's not some kind of agenda - it's just people existing.
Rihgu wrote: As far as "it's not the hobby, it's the donkey caves in the hobby" goes...
if there's a huge number of donkey caves in the hobby... we as non-donkey caves really have to ask ourselves why we're so welcoming to donkey caves that they congregate to our hobby in large numbers...
In effect, there's not really a difference.
Ohohoh no, I don't think I can go along with that logic. I've played a number of online shooters and the donkey-caveness level is pretty high. But I wouldn't say that's the fault of the game. Hell, the level of donkey-caveness on Twitter is pretty high.
There are a number of online games where the developers recognize that they have cultivated a toxic community and then take steps to reduce the toxicity of their community (Overwatch, League of Legends). That is... very much them acknowledging that it is the fault of "the game". GW's "you will not be missed" statement is an acknowledgement of "hey, a lot of donkey caves play our game. Stop being donkey caves!".
Twitter doesn't do anything about toxicity because it's their business model, basically, and they'd become irrelevant if they cultivated a nicer community.
Now, with online communities with 24/7 moderators etc, it's kind of a different story. Blizzard, Riot, or Twitter (theoretically) could hire people to ban the donkey-caves and slowly clean up the community themselves. The burden really falls on them because the players have 0 power within said community. Compared to tabletop games, where it's a bunch of micro-communities with no global moderators, it falls on the players themselves to moderate. Don't share tables with donkey caves. Don't let donkey caves buy product at your store. Drive them to their online space, or playing in their basements with eachother. That's the only way to clean up non-online communities (and the punk scene can corroborate this. It's something they've been doing since the 80s)
Des702 wrote: As long as they don't sexulize the armour I don't see how this would really hurt marines.
I don’t know why someone couldn’t just buy a female head and slap it on a Space Marines body right now? The lore?
My Necrons are all female except the named ones.
Because there's no fething human female heads in the GW range, maybe.
My bad. I thought the Stormcast female heads would fit on a Space Marine perfect. I'll have to keep looking.
Heck, maybe they would. but the problem is, I don't actually play stormcast. I could also stick Sisters heads on there, you know, pick out the few heads in each box that don't have the distinctive sisters of battle karen bangs and that'd also make good female space marines, but functionally it just kind of stinks that I've got:
-Tons of genestealer cultists
-Tons of imperial guard
-Several boxes of chaos cultists
-Three different Necromunda gangs
-A bunch of wacky inquisition stuff
and out of all of those armies, there's not a single one that has a kit containing a spare female head with normal, not crazy hair (which is the main problem with the Eschers, there's just no way to separate that hair from those miniatures to give me reasonable female marines). Meanwhile basically every single one gives me tons of completely compatible, interesting looking dude heads. Orlock gangers are my personal favorites to add to space marines - I love having Deathwatch marines smoking cigars while rocking cool shades and handlebar mustaches.
Reading the replies in this thread I have finally come to understand the title of this thread: "Heresy of the worst kind"
It has nothing to do with the Warhammer universe or game specifically, but with real world people being "Heretics" .
If you enjoy Warhammer as it was created and experienced for decades, YOU are a heretic, because we are told warhammer is deeply and can only be redeemed by games workshop and all players affirming female space marines. If you think it's ok for a story line to exist somewhere in a diverse story universe where there is a faction that is all male, then YOU are the heretic, because warhammer can only be redeemed by games workshop and all players affirming female space marines. If YOU or games workshop will not affirm female space marines, then YOU and games workshop are "heretics of the worst kind", and we all know the fate of heretics.
This is ultimately not just a political thread, but a religious thread, as it posits a tenet of belief and action that all must follow or be deemed and treated as heretics, and it is this sort of thing that is toxic, intolerant, and exclusionary. It really shouldn't have a place here, but perhaps people are too afraid of being branded a heretic by this new cult and it's dogma to call it out.
RegularGuy wrote:If you enjoy Warhammer as it was created and experienced for decades, YOU are a heretic, because we are told warhammer is deeply and can only be redeemed by games workshop and all players affirming female space marines.
Literally no-one is saying that.
What people are saying is that if you value some made up fiction over a real life person feeling excluded because of poorly justifed make believe words, then maybe you just might not be as inclusive as some of you say you are.
Why is the dealbreaker for enjoyment of 40k that women can't be Space Marines? Why is *that* the important catalyst for you?
If you think it's ok for a story line to exist somewhere in a diverse story universe where there is a faction that is all male, then YOU are the heretic, because warhammer can only be redeemed by games workshop and all players affirming female space marines.
It's got nothing to do that there *is* an all male faction. The problem is that the all-male faction is vastly, and I mean VASTLY, more popular, as a result of increased marketability, than every other faction.
If Space Marines were only as popular as Genestealer Cult, this wouldn't matter nearly as much.
If YOU or games workshop will not affirm female space marines, then YOU and games workshop are "heretics of the worst kind", and we all know the fate of heretics.
It honestly sounds like you're trying to start a witch hunt against yourself here. No-one is saying what you're saying, except from you.
This is ultimately not just a political thread, but a religious thread, as it posits a tenet of belief and action that all must follow or be deemed and treated as heretics, and it is this sort of thing that is toxic, intolerant, and exclusionary.
Wanting representation isn't political, and it's certainly not religious.
It really shouldn't have a place here, but perhaps people are too afraid of being branded a heretic by this new cult and it's dogma to call it out.
Again, for anyone else reading - I'd like to point that this is, yet again, another user making some kind of claim to an agenda, or conspiracy, or organised "faction". What is this faction? What is this cult? What are their beliefs? Who are they? What do they want?
Because the only thing people here are asking for is representation in a little toy soldier's game. What's wrong with that?
I think that we can boil it down to the fact that, for anyone who is narrow-minded enough, the fact that multiple people may agree on something that they can't consider relevant is by itself proof enough of some agenda or zealot coordinated action.
It's essentially magical thinking: there is something I don't understand, so there's must be something "else" hidden here (it's a way to avoid to reconcile with the fact that maybe, I'm simply unaware).
That's why we have religion: people prefer to defers to unprovable hypothesis rather than simply admitting they can't know something.
Fact is: history moves in sprints. If Bell and Meucci invented the phone almost at the same time (but the same goes for pens, calcolus or relativity) do you really think it's so strange for multiple people to either ask or agree or advocate for more female models in the flagship miniature line of a game?
And, by the way, if this post offends you somehow because you're against female Space Marine but you don't recognize yourselves in the description above: congratulations! You can now at least start to begin understanding what means being stereotyped.
Lets ease off slinging around insults and dial down the hyperbole please, this thread has gotten along pretty well for a remarkable length of time and it is not going to be closed due to hecklers veto, instead those posters will be removed.
It is possible to have fundamentally different opinions and values and discuss them politely, if this is not possible for you then do not post.
Who is to the left of Vulcan is that Dorn? Actually I am confused by all of them except for the obvious ones, Morty, Magnus, Vulcan, etc. Can anyone list them?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Who is to the left of Vulcan is that Dorn? Actually I am confused by all of them except for the obvious ones, Morty, Magnus, Vulcan, etc. Can anyone list them?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Who is to the left of Vulcan is that Dorn? Actually I am confused by all of them except for the obvious ones, Morty, Magnus, Vulcan, etc. Can anyone list them?
Judging by the flame icon on the gorget and the book, I'd guess that's Lorgar.
I believe they're in legion number order starting with Lion'el on the top left, going across by rows, and ending with Alpharius/Omegon at the bottom right.
Cybtroll wrote: ..for anyone who is narrow-minded enough...
... magical thinking...
...do you really think it's so strange for multiple people to either ask or agree or advocate for more female models in the flagship miniature line of a game?...
... you're against female Space Marine ... You can now at least start to begin understanding what means being stereotyped.
Appropriate user name is appropriate.
Affirm female space marines or you are narrow minded (heretic), object to deeming failure to affirm space marine as heresy, you are a magical thinker, it is good right and salutary to stereotype and exclude anyone who does not affirm female space marines.
What I read as I go through these comments is that for some, the foregone conclusion is that ALL must affirm female space marines, or they are immoral and backward in some way. The suggestion is that the only path to acceptability is affirmation of female space marines. It is not acceptable to have the opinion that it is not necessary for Marines to be modified, and your character and intellect are assumed and asserted to be deficient if you do not believe it is necessary to affirm female space marines.
"What people are saying is that if you value some made up fiction over a real life person feeling excluded because of poorly justified make believe words, then maybe you just might not be as inclusive as some of you say you are.
Its got nothing to do that there *is* an all male faction. The problem is that the all-male faction is vastly, and I mean VASTLY, more popular, as a result of increased marketability, than every other faction.
If Space Marines were only as popular as Genestealer Cult, this wouldn't matter nearly as much"
Where is the representation for Jews, Muslims and Christians in Space Marines? Since representation of such a poular faction is the most important factor? Do you suggest there are no real people who feel excluded by the Emperor's atheism and the religious intolerance of the Imperium? Should space marines, not also be modified by Games Workshop (Because we're not talking homebrew headcannon and fan fic) to include everyone who desires inclusion as space marines? Can fiction be allowed to exist where some popular or historic aspect is not fully representative of all human possibilities? "No" is the logical end of this line of argument. And that position in of itself is a valid personal opinion.
The issue, and the reason I have commented, is when non affirmation of that view becomes reason to demonize others, which (whether the mods desire to notice or acknowledge or not) is an underlying theme implicit across this thread.
Again, the heretic is the person who doesn't see affirmation of female space marines by GW as necessary.
I don't see it as necessary, and I do not believe it is a moral failing to find it unnecessary. Let the deconstruction explaining my deficiencies for not finding it necessary or immoral commence.
Now I apologize to you ingtaer and do as seems good to you, but I would ask you to consider if the tendencies I point out are not occurring, and if they represent positive discussion, or are more representative if a struggle session where the purpose is to deconstruct and demonize any dissent.
RegularGuy wrote: Where is the representation for Jews, Muslims and Christians in Space Marines? Since representation of such a poular faction is the most important factor? Do you suggest there are no real people who feel excluded by the Emperor's atheism and the religious intolerance of the Imperium? Should space marines, not also be modified by Games Workshop (Because we're not talking homebrew headcannon and fan fic) to include everyone who desires inclusion as space marines? Can fiction be allowed to exist where some popular or historic aspect is not fully representative of all human possibilities? "No" is the logical end of this line of argument. And that position in of itself is a valid personal opinion.
The difference between representing women and representing religions is that there's NO real-world religion in 40k.
There's the Imperium, who worship the Emperor, who is fictional.
There's Chaos, who worship the Chaos Gods, who are fictional.
There's some who don't worship anything at all, or only pay lip service, but they're not atheists (unless they're dumb) because the Chaos Gods are very much real-they just don't worship them.
There's the Eldar, who worship their own fictional deities.
So on and so forth.
However, there are men and women in 40k. Yet the flagship franchise only represents men. And the natural place to include women if you really believe the lore around Marines is so sacred that it cannot be touched, the Imperial Guard, has... What? Two special edition models that are women, and the rest are all men?
Where is the representation for ... Christians in Space Marines?
This is the funniest gak someone has posted on this thread in days, my dude. Have an exalt.
Where's the representation for Christians in 40k? GOT EM no christian iconography ANYWHERE in this here game world!!!!!!
There may be absolutely nothing more emblematic of our current cultural moment than someone who I can only presume is at home sitting in a gigantic mountain of Black Templars and Sisters of Battle miniatures with Inquisitor allies asking "where's the CHRISTIAN representation then? what can a CHRISTIAN see to represent them in the 40k universe, what about them HUH???"
Where is the representation for Jews, Muslims and Christians in Space Marines?
Bolded for laughs. But, there is a difference between religion and gender or race that warrants a deeper look at how much representation of each category is appropriate for a given fictional setting.
RegularGuy wrote: Where is the representation for Jews, Muslims and Christians in Space Marines? Since representation of such a poular faction is the most important factor? Do you suggest there are no real people who feel excluded by the Emperor's atheism and the religious intolerance of the Imperium? Should space marines, not also be modified by Games Workshop (Because we're not talking homebrew headcannon and fan fic) to include everyone who desires inclusion as space marines? Can fiction be allowed to exist where some popular or historic aspect is not fully representative of all human possibilities? "No" is the logical end of this line of argument. And that position in of itself is a valid personal opinion.
The difference between representing women and representing religions is that there's NO real-world religion in 40k.
Them crosses show up on "crusaders" quite a bit though, and is apperently by design. So arguably there's christianity in the imagery of 40k, even if not explocitly so.
There's potentially a case to be made that only christianity pops up in 40k, excluding other religions. The Emperor and his Primarchs embarking on "The Great Jihad" . . .
Rihgu wrote: As far as "it's not the hobby, it's the donkey caves in the hobby" goes...
if there's a huge number of donkey caves in the hobby... we as non-donkey caves really have to ask ourselves why we're so welcoming to donkey caves that they congregate to our hobby in large numbers...
In effect, there's not really a difference.
Ohohoh no, I don't think I can go along with that logic. I've played a number of online shooters and the donkey-caveness level is pretty high. But I wouldn't say that's the fault of the game. Hell, the level of donkey-caveness on Twitter is pretty high.
There are a number of online games where the developers recognize that they have cultivated a toxic community and then take steps to reduce the toxicity of their community (Overwatch, League of Legends). That is... very much them acknowledging that it is the fault of "the game". GW's "you will not be missed" statement is an acknowledgement of "hey, a lot of donkey caves play our game. Stop being donkey caves!"
That's not "the game" itself though. That's the way the game community is moderated (or not). For something like 40k, that's the perview of the people running the local FLGS community or the mods for the online spaces in which people meet. It has little to do with the existence of an all male faction.
RegularGuy wrote:Affirm female space marines or you are narrow minded (heretic), object to deeming failure to affirm space marine as heresy, you are a magical thinker, it is good right and salutary to stereotype and exclude anyone who does not affirm female space marines.
We're asking pretty simple questions, actually. Y'all just refuse to answer them.
Do you believe that a piece of fictional writing should be given more importance than the testimony and representation of real human beings? And if so, why?
No-one's accusing you of anything, but it's interesting that you won't answer those questions.
What I read as I go through these comments is that for some, the foregone conclusion is that ALL must affirm female space marines, or they are immoral and backward in some way.
Then feel free to answer my above questions - why do real people mean less to you than some words?
It is not acceptable to have the opinion that it is not necessary for Marines to be modified
But for what reasons? Do you have any reasons for why some fiction is more important than a real human being?
It's not that we're declaring people to be "heretics" (you're the only one doing that), but you're not exactly making your reasons with good faith either. It always seems to come back to either valuing some made up fiction over real people's representation, without any explanation or even self-reflection, or worse, shaming people for wanting representation.
Where is the representation for Jews, Muslims and Christians in Space Marines?
There are *no* real world religions in 40k. Allusions and aesthetic callouts to it, yes, but actual Christians, Jews and Muslims? No. But women? Women do exist.
Why are you avoiding that point?
Do you suggest there are no real people who feel excluded by the Emperor's atheism and the religious intolerance of the Imperium?
Seeing as no modern religions are portrayed, there's no difference in representation here - every religious group is excluded. It's not like one religious group is being represented explicitly more than others.
But men (or rather, male presenting figures) *are* explicitly displayed in the flagship faction, exclusively so. Women are not. Therein lies the imbalance.
Should space marines, not also be modified by Games Workshop (Because we're not talking homebrew headcannon and fan fic) to include everyone who desires inclusion as space marines?
Why shouldn't it? What other limitations are there, in terms of actual representation of marginalised groups, that should exist?
All genders should be able to be Astartes. All ethnicities. There should literally be nothing from GW outlining any kind of exclusion, beyond "only the best recruits can become a Space Marine", because why on earth does it need to be exclusive in the first place?
Can fiction be allowed to exist where some popular or historic aspect is not fully representative of all human possibilities?
Does it need to? In this case, what part of Space Marines being a boys-only club is necessary?
The issue, and the reason I have commented, is when non affirmation of that view becomes reason to demonize others, which (whether the mods desire to notice or acknowledge or not) is an underlying theme implicit across this thread.
But no-one's demonising you, except for yourself. If you're happy that your reasoning doesn't come from a bad place, then you have all the time you like to answer my very simple questions (see top of this comment for said questions).
Again, the heretic is the person who doesn't see affirmation of female space marines by GW as necessary.
But you're the only one making these claims - you're fighting an argument against yourself.
I don't see it as necessary
But why? That's the point I'm getting at here - is it because you don't believe representation is important? Why is it that you get to make that decision? Do you not believe that people want representation? Do you believe that lore is more important than representation?
Why?
JNAProductions wrote:However, there are men and women in 40k. Yet the flagship franchise only represents men.
This is the crux of the issue. Men and women both exist, but only one is represented in the flagship faction.
Why do people not see a problem with that clear inequality?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: For something like 40k, that's the perview of the people running the local FLGS community or the mods for the online spaces in which people meet. It has little to do with the existence of an all male faction.
Indirectly, but an all-male faction (and specifically, being the most iconic faction) can provide implicit endorsement of it being a "male" hobby, which can lead people to feel emboldened to exclude women.
Making the flagship faction visibly inclusive sends a message of inclusivity, and denies bigots ammunition and legitimacy from the very core product itself.
RegularGuy wrote:Affirm female space marines or you are narrow minded (heretic), object to deeming failure to affirm space marine as heresy, you are a magical thinker, it is good right and salutary to stereotype and exclude anyone who does not affirm female space marines.
We're asking pretty simply questions, actually. Y'all just refuse to answer them.
Do you believe that a piece of fictional writing should be given more importance than the testimony and representation of real human beings? And if so, why?
Yah. It's a creative work and it's up to the authors to do with it as they please. An audience can take it or leave it, but Imo it's entirely up to the creators/owners of the work to change it ifthey want to or not.
RegularGuy wrote:Affirm female space marines or you are narrow minded (heretic), object to deeming failure to affirm space marine as heresy, you are a magical thinker, it is good right and salutary to stereotype and exclude anyone who does not affirm female space marines.
We're asking pretty simply questions, actually. Y'all just refuse to answer them.
Do you believe that a piece of fictional writing should be given more importance than the testimony and representation of real human beings? And if so, why?
Yah. It's a creative work
Creative works can, and should, be criticised.
Also, that's not what I'm saying in my point at all. My point isn't directed at GW - it's at RegularGuy: why does RegularGuy, or anyone else who is saying "but we can't change the lore to be inclusive!!" say that? Why can't the lore be changed to be inclusive? Why is that part of the lore some immutable, unchangeable aspect that needs to stay how it is, in spite of the myriad other changes GW have made? Why does the representation of another human being threaten their enjoyment of the hobby? Why does lore mean more to them than someone else's enjoyment?
Those aren't questions for GW. Those are questions for people here to answer and reflect on.
RegularGuy wrote:Affirm female space marines or you are narrow minded (heretic), object to deeming failure to affirm space marine as heresy, you are a magical thinker, it is good right and salutary to stereotype and exclude anyone who does not affirm female space marines.
We're asking pretty simply questions, actually. Y'all just refuse to answer them.
Do you believe that a piece of fictional writing should be given more importance than the testimony and representation of real human beings? And if so, why?
Yah. It's a creative work
Creative works can, and should, be criticised.
Also, that's not what I'm saying in my point at all. My point isn't directed at GW - it's at RegularGuy: why does RegularGuy, or anyone else who is saying "but we can't change the lore to be inclusive!!" say that?
Why can't the lore be changed to be inclusive? Why is that part of the lore some immutable, unchangeable aspect that needs to stay how it is, in spite of the myriad other changes GW have made? Why does the representation of another human being threaten their enjoyment of the hobby? Why does lore mean more to them than someone else's enjoyment?
Those aren't questions for GW. Those are questions for people here to answer and reflect on.
Indeed, GW can and will do what they want.
But if they turned round tomorrow and said ‘female Marines exist now’ would that be a problem? If so, why?
RegularGuy wrote:Affirm female space marines or you are narrow minded (heretic), object to deeming failure to affirm space marine as heresy, you are a magical thinker, it is good right and salutary to stereotype and exclude anyone who does not affirm female space marines.
We're asking pretty simply questions, actually. Y'all just refuse to answer them.
Do you believe that a piece of fictional writing should be given more importance than the testimony and representation of real human beings? And if so, why?
Yah. It's a creative work
Creative works can, and should, be criticised.
Also, that's not what I'm saying in my point at all. My point isn't directed at GW - it's at RegularGuy: why does RegularGuy, or anyone else who is saying "but we can't change the lore to be inclusive!!" say that?
Why can't the lore be changed to be inclusive? Why is that part of the lore some immutable, unchangeable aspect that needs to stay how it is, in spite of the myriad other changes GW have made? Why does the representation of another human being threaten their enjoyment of the hobby? Why does lore mean more to them than someone else's enjoyment?
Those aren't questions for GW. Those are questions for people here to answer and reflect on.
The point is directed at GW whether you claim it to be or not, it's about their product and the actions they take regarding their product.
As for lore being immutable, when people have spent hundreds and thousands of dollars into a paradigm, even a fictional one, they've invested into a sort of shared understanding of that universe. If the universe starts changing in unpredictable ways there's a sort of upset to the "stability" of the investment, as it were. Imo it's basically only natural that change is resisted. So it's not "immutable", but it should be handled with care.
RegularGuy wrote:Affirm female space marines or you are narrow minded (heretic), object to deeming failure to affirm space marine as heresy, you are a magical thinker, it is good right and salutary to stereotype and exclude anyone who does not affirm female space marines.
We're asking pretty simply questions, actually. Y'all just refuse to answer them.
Do you believe that a piece of fictional writing should be given more importance than the testimony and representation of real human beings? And if so, why?
Yah. It's a creative work
Creative works can, and should, be criticised.
Also, that's not what I'm saying in my point at all. My point isn't directed at GW - it's at RegularGuy: why does RegularGuy, or anyone else who is saying "but we can't change the lore to be inclusive!!" say that?
Why can't the lore be changed to be inclusive? Why is that part of the lore some immutable, unchangeable aspect that needs to stay how it is, in spite of the myriad other changes GW have made? Why does the representation of another human being threaten their enjoyment of the hobby? Why does lore mean more to them than someone else's enjoyment?
Those aren't questions for GW. Those are questions for people here to answer and reflect on.
As for lore being immutable, when people have spent hundreds and thousands of dollars into a paradigm, even a fictional one, they've invested into a sort of shared understanding of that universe. If the universe starts changing in unpredictable ways there's a sort of upset to the "stability" of the investment, as it were. Imo it's basically only natural that change is resisted. So it's not "immutable", but it should be handled with care.
True, but would female marines be more disruptive than Primaris? If they were introduced at the same time as Primaris should that have been more controversial than Primaris already was?
Insectum7 wrote: For something like 40k, that's the perview of the people running the local FLGS community or the mods for the online spaces in which people meet. It has little to do with the existence of an all male faction.
Indirectly, but an all-male faction (and specifically, being the most iconic faction) can provide implicit endorsement of it being a "male" hobby, which can lead people to feel emboldened to exclude women.
Making the flagship faction visibly inclusive sends a message of inclusivity, and denies bigots ammunition and legitimacy from the very core product itself.
So here's my question then: Why are you asking for a lore change rather than a representation one? What if GW decided to use Space Marines less as the poster-child, and instead showed more Guard, Sisters, Eldar, Tau, xeno-tentacle-monsters? It seems like GW could be more inclusive without a lore change. (also why not female Custodes? missed opportunity there, imo.)
Insectum7 wrote: The point is directed at GW whether you claim it to be or not, it's about their product and the actions they take regarding their product.
No, the comment I'm making really isn't.
Sorry, but your comment would imply that there's no point discussing this topic at all.
As for lore being immutable, when people have spent hundreds and thousands of dollars into a paradigm, even a fictional one, they've invested into a sort of shared understanding of that universe. If the universe starts changing in unpredictable ways there's a sort of upset to the "stability" of the investment, as it were. Imo it's basically only natural that change is resisted. So it's not "immutable", but it should be handled with care.
So why is it women becoming Space Marines that is the breaking point for these people, considering that Primaris, Guilliman, and Cawl exist?
Clearly, change is tolerable for people, but when that change includes women, it suddenly isn't? I'd like an explanation.
Insectum7 wrote: For something like 40k, that's the perview of the people running the local FLGS community or the mods for the online spaces in which people meet. It has little to do with the existence of an all male faction.
Indirectly, but an all-male faction (and specifically, being the most iconic faction) can provide implicit endorsement of it being a "male" hobby, which can lead people to feel emboldened to exclude women.
Making the flagship faction visibly inclusive sends a message of inclusivity, and denies bigots ammunition and legitimacy from the very core product itself.
So here's my question then: Why are you asking for a lore change rather than a representation one? What if GW decided to use Space Marines less as the poster-child, and instead showed more Guard, Sisters, Eldar, Tau, xeno-tentacle-monsters? It seems like GW could be more inclusive without a lore change. (also why not female Custodes? missed opportunity there, imo.)
That'd also be good. If IG became the new posterchild, and they had a relatively even mix of men and women, that'd be great!
It's also less realistic than adding female Marines to the lore.
Insectum7 wrote: For something like 40k, that's the perview of the people running the local FLGS community or the mods for the online spaces in which people meet. It has little to do with the existence of an all male faction.
Indirectly, but an all-male faction (and specifically, being the most iconic faction) can provide implicit endorsement of it being a "male" hobby, which can lead people to feel emboldened to exclude women.
Making the flagship faction visibly inclusive sends a message of inclusivity, and denies bigots ammunition and legitimacy from the very core product itself.
So here's my question then: Why are you asking for a lore change rather than a representation one?
Because the lore is opposing that representation. Pretty simple, yes?
What if GW decided to use Space Marines less as the poster-child, and instead showed more Guard, Sisters, Eldar, Tau, xeno-tentacle-monsters?
Because I don't believe that'll happen in a million years. Space Marines are too damn iconic, like it or not. But as a what if? Sure. But also, what if women could be Space Marines?
It seems like GW could be more inclusive without a lore change.
Could be? Sure. But letting women become Space Marines is a damn sight easier for GW than it is to remarket and re-distribute resources across all of 40k, don't you think?
(also why not female Custodes? missed opportunity there, imo.)
When Custodes are as iconic as Space Marines, call me. But yes, I'd also like women Custodes, because the reasoning for them being mono-gender is equally flimsy, and a missed opportunity.
RegularGuy wrote:Affirm female space marines or you are narrow minded (heretic), object to deeming failure to affirm space marine as heresy, you are a magical thinker, it is good right and salutary to stereotype and exclude anyone who does not affirm female space marines.
We're asking pretty simply questions, actually. Y'all just refuse to answer them.
Do you believe that a piece of fictional writing should be given more importance than the testimony and representation of real human beings? And if so, why?
Yah. It's a creative work
Creative works can, and should, be criticised.
Also, that's not what I'm saying in my point at all. My point isn't directed at GW - it's at RegularGuy: why does RegularGuy, or anyone else who is saying "but we can't change the lore to be inclusive!!" say that?
Why can't the lore be changed to be inclusive? Why is that part of the lore some immutable, unchangeable aspect that needs to stay how it is, in spite of the myriad other changes GW have made? Why does the representation of another human being threaten their enjoyment of the hobby? Why does lore mean more to them than someone else's enjoyment?
Those aren't questions for GW. Those are questions for people here to answer and reflect on.
As for lore being immutable, when people have spent hundreds and thousands of dollars into a paradigm, even a fictional one, they've invested into a sort of shared understanding of that universe. If the universe starts changing in unpredictable ways there's a sort of upset to the "stability" of the investment, as it were. Imo it's basically only natural that change is resisted. So it's not "immutable", but it should be handled with care.
True, but would female marines be more disruptive than Primaris? If they were introduced at the same time as Primaris should that have been more controversial than Primaris already was?
I honestly thought they were going to do female Primaris. Personally I'm WAAAY more willing to accept female Space Marines than Primaris (*spits). So from a personal standpoint female Space Marines is less controversial than Primaris.
CLEARLY that's not the case with some portion of the community though. And unfortunately I've become increasingly annoyed at the arguments of the pro-female Space Marine crowd. It's honestly made me roll back my stance a bit on the issue a bit.
Insectum7 wrote: I honestly thought they were going to do female Primaris.
Likewise - a massive missed opportunity.
So from a personal standpoint female Space Marines is less controversial than Primaris. CLEARLY that's not the case with some portion of the community though.
And that's what I'm asking questions about, yes?
And unfortunately I've become increasingly annoyed at the arguments of the pro-female Space Marine crowd. It's honestly made me roll back my stance a bit on the issue a bit.
Insectum7 wrote: For something like 40k, that's the perview of the people running the local FLGS community or the mods for the online spaces in which people meet. It has little to do with the existence of an all male faction.
Indirectly, but an all-male faction (and specifically, being the most iconic faction) can provide implicit endorsement of it being a "male" hobby, which can lead people to feel emboldened to exclude women.
Making the flagship faction visibly inclusive sends a message of inclusivity, and denies bigots ammunition and legitimacy from the very core product itself.
So here's my question then: Why are you asking for a lore change rather than a representation one?
Because the lore is opposing that representation. Pretty simple, yes?
Not simple, since Sisters exist. If an all-female faction can exist then an all male faction can exist. The issue becomes representation-of-faction in that case. Space Marines are the poster-child, but if they weren't . . . there would be less of an issue.
Sisters don't have the same marketability or customisability that Space Marines have though.
If an all-female faction can exist then an all male faction can exist. The issue becomes representation-of-faction in that case. Space Marines are the poster-child, but if they weren't . . . there would be less of an issue.
Absolutely, but I think it's a hell of a lot easier right now to just... let women be Space Marines. (Also, Space Marines do offer unique features that neither Sisters or many other factions offer - namely, the actual Astartes aesthetic, the customisation of Space Marines, the playstyle on tabletop, or the legacy/background of what Space Marines are.)
Because really, why *shouldn't* women be allowed to be Space Marines? Is it *only* the lore?
Space marines are a full third of the armies in the game and 50% of the model releases.
That's the only reason this matters. Nobody cares if Tempestus Scions exclude women (with the whole Schola Progenum thing). Or if Orks are effectively monogender. SMs being male only effectively makes the whole game into a boys club.
Just to be pedantic, Scions can be anything.
It's just the SoB that only takes girls from the Schola, the Commissariat, Scions, and Inquisition all take whatever.
pls no kill.
1. One argument goes something like "Gender identity isn't important to Space Marines anyways, so why not include women too?" Which is to say "Gender identity isn't important, but it's important enough that I want this change." It seems fundamentally flawed.
2. Another major issue I have is seeing demands for changing "creative works" to reform them in "their" image. This appears to be where the accusations of narcissism comes from. "I need to see myself represented." There's a certain (dare I say it) 'entitled petulance' about it. I find this issue to be particularly intriguing. On the one hand it's easy for me to understand the issues of representation, on the other hand . . . it's a fictional setting that has it's own rules, values, systems and traditions. The more you break/change the more you potentially erode the integrity of the setting overall. Perhaps more harmful, the more it reflects 'real life', the less of an exotic, escapist setting it becomes.
3. Another aspect is the 'apparent' responsibility of GW to somehow police the behavior of their players. "There has to be female Space Marines because some players are donkey-caves to group X". I can't really get on board with this one. I see it as roughly the same "enabling/emboldening" issue with people showing up with "full-redband-swastika-IG armies" because the "Imperium is fascist, yo". Or for that matter, the accusations of video game violence causing real-world violence. It's a fictional setting, and people should understand it/treat as such. If people can't do that, that's more a problem with the individual player or local community than the game/setting itself.
4. Another thrust of the matter is the 'requirement' that SMs change because the SMs are the poster-boys. ImoGW could just as easily make Space Marines less of the focus. Lots of people are pretty tired of them getting so much attention. Imo it would be better for the health of the lore and the overall game if less attention was paid to them. So I believe there are other solutions out there.
There's also a shadow of "If you don't want female SM you are a bigot" that looms over everything that's rather irritating.
Unfortunately I've got limited time atm, but that's what I can post for now.
I don't know if the SoB calls them SoB, or even members of the order, but their are absolutely male members of their faction. Priests, Echlesiarchs, The giant blade penitents, the Acolytes, etc.
Where is the representation for ... Christians in Space Marines?
This is the funniest gak someone has posted on this thread in days, my dude. Have an exalt.
Where's the representation for Christians in 40k? GOT EM no christian iconography ANYWHERE in this here game world!!!!!!
There may be absolutely nothing more emblematic of our current cultural moment than someone who I can only presume is at home sitting in a gigantic mountain of Black Templars and Sisters of Battle miniatures with Inquisitor allies asking "where's the CHRISTIAN representation then? what can a CHRISTIAN see to represent them in the 40k universe, what about them HUH???"
I I think the best representation for the Christian in 40k is the discussion between the emperor and the last priest on earth, who walks back into the burning church to die rather than join the imperium. I find it interesting that you feel that the trappings and forms of the imperium comprises a valid and appropriate representation for Christianity, where it is actually mockery and denigration. The imperium is the opposite of the authentic christian experience.
That said, I make no demand for GW or others to change their universe to be more inclusive or representative of authentic Christianity, it is no more necessary or appropriate than demanding affirmation of female space marines.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I don't know if the SoB calls them SoB, or even members of the order, but their are absolutely male members of their faction. Priests, Echlesiarchs, The giant blade penitents, the Acolytes, etc.
Soorrt of. There are no male Sisters of Battle. Any males are auxilliaries, iirc. So Faction, yes, but actual members of the SoB, no.
It's highly possible that Space Marines use female servitors, but I wouldn't call them Space Marines.
RegularGuy wrote: The imperium is the opposite of the authentic christian experience.
*Looks at the Crusades, Witch Trials, Wars of Religion, corruption at the highest levels of most ruling bodies* Yeah, sure thing.
That said, I make no demand for GW or others to change their universe to be more inclusive or representative of authentic Christianity, it is no more necessary or appropriate than demanding affirmation of female space marines.
Mk but religion is a choice. You can stop being a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist at any time.
You kind of can't just stop being one sex or the other, the process takes years if you even get the chance to start it in the first place.
Literally every problem I see brought up could be solved by just making the might of the imperial guard the flagship faction. They are easily the most diverse and inclusive faction, and are actually still humans, unlike marines.
Insectum7 wrote:1. One argument goes something like "Gender identity isn't important to Space Marines anyways, so why not include women too?" Which is to say "Gender identity isn't important, but it's important enough that I want this change." It seems fundamentally flawed.
It's not saying gender identity isn't important full stop, it's "gender identity shouldn't be a factor in what Space Marines are, so they should be neutral". You mistake being all-male for being the norm. It's not.
2. Another major issue I have is seeing demands for changing "creative works" to reform them in "their" image. This appears to be where the accusations of narcissism comes from. "I need to see myself represented." There's a certain (dare I say it) 'entitled petulance' about it.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but are you someone who has ever felt unrepresented?
I may be wrong, but I find it difficult to take comments like that seriously when they come from people who don't actually know what it's like to not feel represented.
On the one hand it's easy for me to understand the issues of representation, on the other hand . . . it's a fictional setting that has it's own rules, values, systems and traditions.
Exactly - fictional rules. Why are real life people being held to the account of fictional rules? Why do fictional rules trump real life feelings and representation?
The more you break/change the more you potentially erode the integrity of the setting overall.
Potentially, but why are women Space Marines the catalyst? Should the setting not change at all from the moment of it's creation?
Perhaps more harmful, the more it reflects 'real life', the less of an exotic, escapist setting it becomes.
If you're not allowing people to feel represented, how can they find escapism?
More importantly, and I'm sure you don't mean it, but you're implying that "women aren't allowed here" is an escapist desire for people. Is that something we want to foster?
3. Another aspect is the 'apparent' responsibility of GW to somehow police the behavior of their players. "There has to be female Space Marines because some players are donkey-caves to group X". I can't really get on board with this one. I see it as roughly the same "enabling/emboldening" issue with people showing up with "full-redband-swastika-IG armies" because the "Imperium is fascist, yo". Or for that matter, the accusations of video game violence causing real-world violence. It's a fictional setting, and people should understand it/treat as such. If people can't do that, that's more a problem with the individual player or local community than the game/setting itself.
Sorry, but no. If I produce something, and a considerable amount of people taking my products are using them to enact or support harmful ideals, I need to question why they're using *my* product to do so, and if I oppose those ideals (which I would hope everyone here does), is it not my responsibility to deny them that?
Sorry, but I take a very active stance in opposing donkey-caves, and I believe that should be a responsibility of everyone. But, even morals aside, from a monetary standpoint, GW have a responsibility to do this too: making the environment more attractive to women and other marginalised groups has actually only increased profits for media companies that have done so. The whole "get woke, go broke" narrative is completely untrue, and appealing to a wider audience (and making them welcome) shows increased profits and markets.
4. Another thrust of the matter is the 'requirement' that SMs change because the SMs are the poster-boys. ImoGW could just as easily make Space Marines less of the focus.
And undo decades of market focus, cultural inertia, and simple memetic awareness? I don't believe so for a second. Not without investing an absolutely MASSIVE amount into new book lines, new media, new models, new codexes and subcodexes, new factions, and whole new branding.
Versus "anyone can be a Space Marine"? No chance.
There's also a shadow of "If you don't want female SM you are a bigot" that looms over everything that's rather irritating.
If people are seeing that, it's because they're choosing to see it there. They're more than welcome to outline in detail why their points about how "THE LORE WOULD BE RUINED WITH WOMEN SPACE MARINES" isn't sexist - I invite them to do so.
Unfortunately I've got limited time atm, but that's what I can post for now.
Appreciated.
RegularGuy wrote:I I think the best representation for the Christian in 40k is the discussion between the emperor and the last priest on earth, who walks back into the burning church to die rather than join the imperium.
Exactly - it's a single non-core book where an unmentioned faith (implied to be Christian, but is never explicitly named so) is wiped out. It being Christian is never the important part of the book, and as such, is most likely why it it never explicitly named. It's not exactly the same dominance that Space Marines have over 40k, is it?
Comparing the two is rooted in downplaying the position women occupy within the population, and their total absence in the flagship faction.
RegularGuy wrote: The imperium is the opposite of the authentic christian experience.
*Looks at the Crusades, Witch Trials, Wars of Religion, corruption at the highest levels of most ruling bodies* Yeah, sure thing.
That said, I make no demand for GW or others to change their universe to be more inclusive or representative of authentic Christianity, it is no more necessary or appropriate than demanding affirmation of female space marines.
Mk but religion is a choice. You can stop being a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist at any time.
You kind of can't just stop being one sex or the other, the process takes years if you even get the chance to start it in the first place.
That really needs an ‘in the West’ qualifier tbf - not necessarily true everywhere in the world.
But as noted previously no real religion is explicitly represented in 40k so no individual religion is specifically excluded either.
Unlike gender where men are allowed in the popular club but not women. (And I agree, it’s the fact that it’s the ‘popular club’ which makes it the issue).
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:Literally every problem I see brought up could be solved by just making the might of the imperial guard the flagship faction. They are easily the most diverse and inclusive faction, and are actually still humans, unlike marines.
Again, perhaps - but how do you propose undoing the massive cultural weight that Space Marines have behind them? How long do you expect this would take? How many kits and models and sub-codexes and books and video games and Guardsmen on the front windows of GW stores do you need to make before they come close to the same dominance that Space Marines have occupied?
And then contrast that with "anyone can become a Space Marine", and a single sprue of Astartes women heads.
(And that's still ignoring why are Space Marines all male in the first place, and why should they be?)
That really needs an ‘in the West’ qualifier tbf - not necessarily true everywhere in the world.
But as noted previously no real religion is explicitly represented in 40k so no individual religion is specifically excluded either.
Unlike gender where men are allowed in the popular club but not women. (And I agree, it’s the fact that it’s the ‘popular club’ which makes it the issue).
I'm trying not to be annoyed at how you missed the point I was making.
When I say "religion is a choice", what I am saying is "religion is a social construct and nobody is biologically determined to be religion X. You might be forced into being religion X by the society you live in but that is sociological and not biological, unlike sex which is biological. Note I say SEX and not GENDER because Gender is also a social construct and changes as society does."
I wonder if all these saying that female marines is a travesty and against the “lore” and dragging gender politics into 40K, would they be willing to be vocal in their opposition if the issue was black Spacemarines?
Insectum7 wrote:1. One argument goes something like "Gender identity isn't important to Space Marines anyways, so why not include women too?" Which is to say "Gender identity isn't important, but it's important enough that I want this change." It seems fundamentally flawed.
It's not saying gender identity isn't important full stop, it's "gender identity shouldn't be a factor in what Space Marines are, so they should be neutral".
You mistake being all-male for being the norm. It's not.
2. Another major issue I have is seeing demands for changing "creative works" to reform them in "their" image. This appears to be where the accusations of narcissism comes from. "I need to see myself represented." There's a certain (dare I say it) 'entitled petulance' about it.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but are you someone who has ever felt unrepresented?
I may be wrong, but I find it difficult to take comments like that seriously when they come from people who don't actually know what it's like to not feel represented.
On the one hand it's easy for me to understand the issues of representation, on the other hand . . . it's a fictional setting that has it's own rules, values, systems and traditions.
Exactly - fictional rules. Why are real life people being held to the account of fictional rules? Why do fictional rules trump real life feelings and representation?
The more you break/change the more you potentially erode the integrity of the setting overall.
Potentially, but why are women Space Marines the catalyst? Should the setting not change at all from the moment of it's creation?
Perhaps more harmful, the more it reflects 'real life', the less of an exotic, escapist setting it becomes.
If you're not allowing people to feel represented, how can they find escapism?
More importantly, and I'm sure you don't mean it, but you're implying that "women aren't allowed here" is an escapist desire for people. Is that something we want to foster?
3. Another aspect is the 'apparent' responsibility of GW to somehow police the behavior of their players. "There has to be female Space Marines because some players are donkey-caves to group X". I can't really get on board with this one. I see it as roughly the same "enabling/emboldening" issue with people showing up with "full-redband-swastika-IG armies" because the "Imperium is fascist, yo". Or for that matter, the accusations of video game violence causing real-world violence. It's a fictional setting, and people should understand it/treat as such. If people can't do that, that's more a problem with the individual player or local community than the game/setting itself.
Sorry, but no. If I produce something, and a considerable amount of people taking my products are using them to enact or support harmful ideals, I need to question why they're using *my* product to do so, and if I oppose those ideals (which I would hope everyone here does), is it not my responsibility to deny them that?
Sorry, but I take a very active stance in opposing donkey-caves, and I believe that should be a responsibility of everyone.
But, even morals aside, from a monetary standpoint, GW have a responsibility to do this too: making the environment more attractive to women and other marginalised groups has actually only increased profits for media companies that have done so. The whole "get woke, go broke" narrative is completely untrue, and appealing to a wider audience (and making them welcome) shows increased profits and markets.
4. Another thrust of the matter is the 'requirement' that SMs change because the SMs are the poster-boys. ImoGW could just as easily make Space Marines less of the focus.
And undo decades of market focus, cultural inertia, and simple memetic awareness? I don't believe so for a second. Not without investing an absolutely MASSIVE amount into new book lines, new media, new models, new codexes and subcodexes, new factions, and whole new branding.
Versus "anyone can be a Space Marine"? No chance.
There's also a shadow of "If you don't want female SM you are a bigot" that looms over everything that's rather irritating.
If people are seeing that, it's because they're choosing to see it there. They're more than welcome to outline in detail why their points about how "THE LORE WOULD BE RUINED WITH WOMEN SPACE MARINES" isn't sexist - I invite them to do so.
Unfortunately I've got limited time atm, but that's what I can post for now.
Appreciated.
RegularGuy wrote:I I think the best representation for the Christian in 40k is the discussion between the emperor and the last priest on earth, who walks back into the burning church to die rather than join the imperium.
Exactly - it's a single non-core book where an unmentioned faith (implied to be Christian, but is never explicitly named so) is wiped out. It being Christian is never the important part of the book, and as such, is most likely why it it never explicitly named. It's not exactly the same dominance that Space Marines have over 40k, is it?
Comparing the two is rooted in downplaying the position women occupy within the population, and their total absence in the flagship faction.
I'd be interested to see responses from someone other than Smudge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: I wonder if all these saying that female marines is a travesty and against the “lore” and dragging gender politics into 40K, would they be willing to be vocal in their opposition if the issue was black Spacemarines?
Seems unrelated, since black Space Marines are allowed by the lore.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:Literally every problem I see brought up could be solved by just making the might of the imperial guard the flagship faction. They are easily the most diverse and inclusive faction, and are actually still humans, unlike marines.
Again, perhaps - but how do you propose undoing the massive cultural weight that Space Marines have behind them? How long do you expect this would take? How many kits and models and sub-codexes and books and video games and Guardsmen on the front windows of GW stores do you need to make before they come close to the same dominance that Space Marines have occupied?
And then contrast that with "anyone can become a Space Marine", and a single sprue of Astartes women heads.
(And that's still ignoring why are Space Marines all male in the first place, and why should they be?)
I mean, it's real easy to get people hooked on catachan and cadians through use of stuff like predator and starship troopers, some new lore that shows them actually being competent would also help.
Space marines are male because of weird biology stuff, but also because they're made in the image of the emperor and their primarchs. Plus i'm only against official GW stuff doing it, I don't want the 20 plus kits that would happen because of this. If you want to just hobby up some female go ahead, you'z still gonna get krumped by da orkz.
Insectum7 wrote: I'd be interested to see responses from someone other than Smudge.
Have you even looked through this thread mate? There's been a fair few people who have taken the same position as Smudge, myself included. The difference is that most of us cba repeating everything we've already said 20 times already for the 21st time because some new has jumped into the thread.
Gert wrote: Just to be pedantic, Scions can be anything.
It's just the SoB that only takes girls from the Schola, the Commissariat, Scions, and Inquisition all take whatever.
pls no kill.
Sorry, I'm not keeping track of which factions are canonically boys-only and which just happen to have all male models for no reason. I'll mentally add scions to the 'whoops, we forgot' list, I just had it in my brain that all the kiddos went to Warhammergwarts together and the little boy children got their tacticool space marine wannabe armor and the little girl children got their boobplates and bolters.
.
