You've literally been told why within 40k lore.
Lore: The geneseed process simply doesn't work on females for some unknown reason.
It's not an unknown reason, though. The reason is that the spectacularly ugly female models that GW tried to sell in the late '80s weren't popular, and so they added a line about space marines being men to the background to explain why the models they sold from then on were all men.
It's an anachronism based on an issue that no longer applies to the hobby, and no longer fits with the way the setting has evolved.
Sledgehammer wrote: The brotherhood, self sacrifice and monastic inspiration inherent to the cultural makeup of space marines is exactly what makes them space marines.
What exactly about a monastic lifestyle (let's ignore Space Wolves for the moment!) requires adherents to be men?
Are women not capable of self sacrifice?
Can women not share bonds with those they fight with?
None of what you described needs to be inherently masculine, particularly in a setting that doesn't treat men and women any differently to each other anywhere else, other than in one badly dated joke to justify nuns with guns.
40k is in many ways directly at odds with our sensibilities and moral compass, which has helped to insulate it from some of the broader cultural discourse ongoing in media. Please stop interjecting these issues into a setting that is in its essence diametrically opposed to that kind of discourse.
Conversely, it could be argued that maintaining a gender bias into Space Marines when that bias doesn't actually exist in the culture that they represent does more to 'interject these issues' into the setting than allowing women to be Space Marines would.
The Imperium does not have a gender bias. We're shown no other job in the entirety of the Imperium where women are told 'Nope, can't do it. The genitals are not right for this action!' Just Space Marines.
It was not questioned back when the game was first created, because that gender bias did exist in the minds of the people playing the game. But the longer it goes on, and the more women are represented in the rest of the game, the more absurd it gets.
I'll quote Insaniak here, because I'd like to hear your answer.
This post puts it significantly better than I did.
All of those things are EXACTLY what the sisters of battle are in their own faction. To intermix them is to dilute the image of both and to essentially make one redundant. The monastic structure that they are given is in service to the broader themes of a regressive religious society, that at times forces the viewer/reader/player to question their existence nondiegetically and to come to a conclusion that it is silly in the real world. That is the very essence of the satire in 40k.
40ks best stories illustrate that societies can do evil, but individuals always have a choice to act morally despite the depravity around them.
You've literally been told why within 40k lore.
Lore: The geneseed process simply doesn't work on females for some unknown reason.
It's not an unknown reason, though. The reason is that the spectacularly ugly female models that GW tried to sell in the late '80s weren't popular, and so they added a line about space marines being men to the background to explain why the models they sold from then on were all men.
It's an anachronism based on an issue that no longer applies to the hobby, and no longer fits with the way the setting has evolved.
You're right, it's not a secret to those of us here in the real world why GW wrote the lore the way they did. That reason is always Sales/$.
But it IS an unknown reason to the characters within the game.
Sledgehammer wrote: The brotherhood, self sacrifice and monastic inspiration inherent to the cultural makeup of space marines is exactly what makes them space marines.
What exactly about a monastic lifestyle (let's ignore Space Wolves for the moment!) requires adherents to be men?
Are women not capable of self sacrifice?
Can women not share bonds with those they fight with?
None of what you described needs to be inherently masculine, particularly in a setting that doesn't treat men and women any differently to each other anywhere else, other than in one badly dated joke to justify nuns with guns.
40k is in many ways directly at odds with our sensibilities and moral compass, which has helped to insulate it from some of the broader cultural discourse ongoing in media. Please stop interjecting these issues into a setting that is in its essence diametrically opposed to that kind of discourse.
Conversely, it could be argued that maintaining a gender bias into Space Marines when that bias doesn't actually exist in the culture that they represent does more to 'interject these issues' into the setting than allowing women to be Space Marines would.
The Imperium does not have a gender bias. We're shown no other job in the entirety of the Imperium where women are told 'Nope, can't do it. The genitals are not right for this action!' Just Space Marines.
It was not questioned back when the game was first created, because that gender bias did exist in the minds of the people playing the game. But the longer it goes on, and the more women are represented in the rest of the game, the more absurd it gets.
I'll quote Insaniak here, because I'd like to hear your answer.
This post puts it significantly better than I did.
All of those things are EXACTLY what the sisters of battle are in their own faction. To intermix them is to dilute the image of both and to essentially make one redundant. The monastic structure that they are given is in service to the broader themes of a regressive religious society, that at times forces the viewer/reader/player to question their existence nondiegetically and to come to a conclusion that it is silly in the real world. That is the very essence of the satire in 40k.
40ks best stories illustrate that societies can do evil, but individuals always have a choice to act morally despite the depravity around them.
None of that has anything to do with Marines being a boys-only club.
Sisters are not female Marines, they’re the military arm of the Imperium’s religion.
Black Templars are similar, but Space Wolves aren’t. Nor are Ultramarines. Or Blood Angels.
You've literally been told why within 40k lore.
Lore: The geneseed process simply doesn't work on females for some unknown reason.
It's not an unknown reason, though. The reason is that the spectacularly ugly female models that GW tried to sell in the late '80s weren't popular, and so they added a line about space marines being men to the background to explain why the models they sold from then on were all men.
It's an anachronism based on an issue that no longer applies to the hobby, and no longer fits with the way the setting has evolved.
You're right, it's not a secret to those of us here in the real world why GW wrote the lore the way they did. That reason is always Sales/$.
But it IS an unknown reason to the characters within the game.
The characters in the game change drastically in knowledge and personality all the time. They are also wrong much of the time, or were when the background was more satirical.
Sledgehammer wrote: The brotherhood, self sacrifice and monastic inspiration inherent to the cultural makeup of space marines is exactly what makes them space marines.
What exactly about a monastic lifestyle (let's ignore Space Wolves for the moment!) requires adherents to be men?
Are women not capable of self sacrifice?
Can women not share bonds with those they fight with?
None of what you described needs to be inherently masculine, particularly in a setting that doesn't treat men and women any differently to each other anywhere else, other than in one badly dated joke to justify nuns with guns.
40k is in many ways directly at odds with our sensibilities and moral compass, which has helped to insulate it from some of the broader cultural discourse ongoing in media. Please stop interjecting these issues into a setting that is in its essence diametrically opposed to that kind of discourse.
Conversely, it could be argued that maintaining a gender bias into Space Marines when that bias doesn't actually exist in the culture that they represent does more to 'interject these issues' into the setting than allowing women to be Space Marines would.
The Imperium does not have a gender bias. We're shown no other job in the entirety of the Imperium where women are told 'Nope, can't do it. The genitals are not right for this action!' Just Space Marines.
It was not questioned back when the game was first created, because that gender bias did exist in the minds of the people playing the game. But the longer it goes on, and the more women are represented in the rest of the game, the more absurd it gets.
I'll quote Insaniak here, because I'd like to hear your answer.
This post puts it significantly better than I did.
All of those things are EXACTLY what the sisters of battle are in their own faction. To intermix them is to dilute the image of both and to essentially make one redundant. The monastic structure that they are given is in service to the broader themes of a regressive religious society, that at times forces the viewer/reader/player to question their existence nondiegetically and to come to a conclusion that it is silly in the real world. That is the very essence of the satire in 40k.
40ks best stories illustrate that societies can do evil, but individuals always have a choice to act morally despite the depravity around them.
None of that has anything to do with Marines being a boys-only club.
Sisters are not female Marines, they’re the military arm of the Imperium’s religion.
Black Templars are similar, but Space Wolves aren’t. Nor are Ultramarines. Or Blood Angels.
They are literally elite power armored soldiers that fight with religious zeal in a religiously structured way similar to space marine chapters. The only real tangible difference is that they look slightly differently, and use faith instead of gene modification. There are no legions anymore in the Imperium, only chapters, which are a direct callback to the Teutonic Knights as well. This includes those CHAPTERS you just mentioned.
Outside of that the culture of brotherhood cannot exist in the same way or capacity in an intersex organization. It's just quite frankly not believable. The space marines would have to change to accommodate, and thus in my opinion lose their identity in the process.
Sledgehammer wrote: All of those things are EXACTLY what the sisters of battle are in their own faction. To intermix them is to dilute the image of both and to essentially make one redundant.
Sisters are the military arm of the church. Space Marines are the elite shock troops of the Imperium. Putting men into the one, or women into the other would not change that in the slightest.
The monastic structure that they are given is in service to the broader themes of a regressive religious society, that at times forces the viewer/reader/player to question their existence nondiegetically and to come to a conclusion that it is silly in the real world. That is the very essence of the satire in 40k.
That monastic structure is not reliant on them being men.
In catholic and adjacent structures, nuns and monks are essentially the same thing. The only reason they're separate is to promote celibacy. That's not an issue for Space Marines, since they have no interest in that sort of nonsense anyway. And once you remove sex from the equation, there is absolutely no reason that your monastic structure shouldn't include women.
Outside of that the culture of brotherhood cannot exist in the same way or capacity in an intersex organization. It's just quite frankly not believable. The space marines would have to change to accommodate, and thus in my opinion lose their identity in the process.
The only thing preventing that culture of brotherhood from existing in an intersex organisation is the belief that men and women are inherently different. In a society that doesn't view them men and women as being different, there is no reason that culture could not include both men and women. The brotherhood comes from shared experience with fellow warriors, rather than men specifically, because the gender of that fellow warrior simply doesn't matter.
Sledgehammer wrote: All of those things are EXACTLY what the sisters of battle are in their own faction. To intermix them is to dilute the image of both and to essentially make one redundant.
Sisters are the military arm of the church. Space Marines are the elite shock troops of the Imperium. Putting men into the one, or women into the other would not change that in the slightest.
The monastic structure that they are given is in service to the broader themes of a regressive religious society, that at times forces the viewer/reader/player to question their existence nondiegetically and to come to a conclusion that it is silly in the real world. That is the very essence of the satire in 40k.
That monastic structure is not reliant on them being men.
In catholic and adjacent structures, nuns and monks are essentially the same thing. The only reason they're separate is to promote celibacy. That's not an issue for Space Marines, since they have no interest in that sort of nonsense anyway. And once you remove sex from the equation, there is absolutely no reason that your monastic structure shouldn't include women.
Outside of that the culture of brotherhood cannot exist in the same way or capacity in an intersex organization. It's just quite frankly not believable. The space marines would have to change to accommodate, and thus in my opinion lose their identity in the process.
The only thing preventing that culture of brotherhood from existing in an intersex organisation is the belief that men and women are inherently different. In a society that doesn't view them men and women as being different, there is no reason that culture could not include both men and women. The brotherhood comes from shared experience with fellow warriors, rather than men specifically, because the gender of that fellow warrior simply doesn't matter.
Their separation in the 40k setting is what helps to give them their very identity due to the call back and mirroring of the real world orders....
And yes, men and women are different, but we will have to agree to disagree.....
Their separation in the 40k setting is what helps to give them their very identity due to the call back and mirroring of the real world orders....
What gives them their identity is that one is the militant arm of the church, and the other is an elite force of bioengineered shock troops.
And yes, men and women are different, but we will have to agree to disagree.....
Sure... but culturally, the vast majority of those differences are entirely sociological, so in a society that views men and women as equal, they wouldn't exist.
Most of the other differences go away when you take said men and women as prepubescent youths and surgically and chemically alter them to match a specific template...
ccs wrote: You've literally been told why within 40k lore.
Lore: The geneseed process simply doesn't work on females for some unknown reason.
And you've literally been told why, "...but the lore!" isn't a valid excuse.
Lore: Cawl figured out the problem and fixed it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sledgehammer wrote: [Sisters] are literally elite power armored soldiers that fight with religious zeal in a religiously structured way similar to space marine chapters. The only real tangible difference is that they look slightly differently, and use faith instead of gene modification. There are no legions anymore in the Imperium, only chapters, which are a direct callback to the Teutonic Knights as well. This includes those CHAPTERS you just mentioned.
Outside of that the culture of brotherhood cannot exist in the same way or capacity in an intersex organization. It's just quite frankly not believable. The space marines would have to change to accommodate, and thus in my opinion lose their identity in the process.
If Sisters had the exact same stats as Marines, you'd almost have a point, here. Almost.
Sledgehammer wrote: The brotherhood, self sacrifice and monastic inspiration inherent to the cultural makeup of space marines is exactly what makes them space marines.
Nah. I’m pretty sure it’s the genhancement, lifelong chemical, psychic and hypnotic brainwashing that turns pre-pubescent children into 7’ combat mentalists, doomed from the second they’re brought on board as an aspirant to a life of servitude and an inevitably messy death that truly defines a Space Marine.
Their removal from humanity, to serve humanity.
The monastic thing is not inherent to them. Common across many if not most Chapters? Sure. But not an inherent, indelible part or result of being an Astartes. Nor has it anything to do with their Underpants Area. Thus, should the Y Chromosome limitation be overcome? There’s no reason the monastic vibe would change. At all.
Deus ex cawl is already a damaging thing for the canon of the universe.
Anyone insisting on it falls within the type of people that in essence ask for the accomodation of the Toyota corola in lord of the rings.
Whilst certainly a very different approach? Cawl stands as testament to what The Imperium could achieve, if it could just sort itself out.
The dude had 10,000 years and his rank to do what he did, with information and technologies nobody else had access to. He also had the standing permission of not just a Primarch, but Roboute Guilliman.
I get folk don’t like it, and fair enough, I’m not about to tell anyone what they should or shouldn’t like. But please in turn acknowledge any dislike for it is also a matter of opinion.
Whilst certainly a very different approach? Cawl stands as testament to what The Imperium could achieve, if it could just sort itself out.
The dude had 10,000 years and his rank to do what he did, with information and technologies nobody else had access to. He also had the standing permission of not just a Primarch, but Roboute Guilliman.
I get folk don’t like it, and fair enough, I’m not about to tell anyone what they should or shouldn’t like. But please in turn acknowledge any dislike for it is also a matter of opinion.
No he does not. Cawl does not stand the testament other than he is a cheap deus ex machina type deal to push onto you new marines without seemingly beeing disingenious.
And no that would literally break the canon even more than cawl already did. And the same for robute.
So yes, it's akin to asking for the acomodation of the toyota corola into lotr. Because that is what cawl and his antigrav and his supposedly better marines are in an imperium on total war footing and technological decay supposedly.
Whilst certainly a very different approach? Cawl stands as testament to what The Imperium could achieve, if it could just sort itself out.
The dude had 10,000 years and his rank to do what he did, with information and technologies nobody else had access to. He also had the standing permission of not just a Primarch, but Roboute Guilliman.
I get folk don’t like it, and fair enough, I’m not about to tell anyone what they should or shouldn’t like. But please in turn acknowledge any dislike for it is also a matter of opinion.
Thats the point. The Imperium will not sort itself out. It's backwards by design...
No. You’re quite right. Indeed part of the tragedy, from which the satire arises, is that Literal Son’s Of The Emperor, Genecrafted Demigods, have finally returned. And are kinda powerless to right the ship.
But we still have instance of individuals providing progress, of a kind.
It could be rediscovery of an STC fragment, a world rich in Archaeotech or Lost Forgeworld returning to the fold. Or, as with Cawl, the result of 10,000 years of R&D, based on the remains of the original Astartes project.
No. You’re quite right. Indeed part of the tragedy, from which the satire arises, is that Literal Son’s Of The Emperor, Genecrafted Demigods, have finally returned. And are kinda powerless to right the ship.
But we still have instance of individuals providing progress, of a kind.
It could be rediscovery of an STC fragment, a world rich in Archaeotech or Lost Forgeworld returning to the fold. Or, as with Cawl, the result of 10,000 years of R&D, based on the remains of the original Astartes project.
And yet you're arguing for a massive structural and cultural change in imperial society and their perception of their god's literal angels of death? Individuals being more liberal with their tolerance, sure. All of imperial society changing how they view the Adeptus Astartes, when even the Primaris are still met with hesitation and suspicion?
ya'll realize the callidus temple of assassins are all female as well, right? Same as the Sisters of Silence...
insaniak wrote: It's not an unknown reason, though. The reason is that the spectacularly ugly female models that GW tried to sell in the late '80s weren't popular, and so they added a line about space marines being men to the background to explain why the models they sold from then on were all men.
Gabs and Jayne were first on sale in '88 - that's after the release of Rogue Trader, after the RTB01 plastic releases, after the initial marine model release, and long after the marines were defined as a 'boys only' club. Though before geneseeds.
Outside of that the culture of brotherhood cannot exist in the same way or capacity in an intersex organization. It's just quite frankly not believable. The space marines would have to change to accommodate, and thus in my opinion lose their identity in the process.
This is commentary more about you, and how you view gender, rather than objective observation about reality.
Outside of that the culture of brotherhood cannot exist in the same way or capacity in an intersex organization. It's just quite frankly not believable. The space marines would have to change to accommodate, and thus in my opinion lose their identity in the process.
This is commentary more about you, and how you view gender, rather than objective observation about reality.
No, your commentary is indicative of someone lacking rather in the logical department and stepping to ad hominem.
Hellebore wrote: You missed every other comment I made about there also being gendered male units. When there is parity, it's not an issue to have that. Selective quoting is not going to make you look clever.
I phrased this part in a general way on purpose instead of calling you out directly on a past quote, as I did not see you specifically arguing against the male identity. So it was not directed at you, but a remark in general. The rest of your reply to this reads to me like you are fighting an ideological battle here. This might be were we differ. My standpoint is from a perspective of "what change to the lore is fitting for the setting and makes for a better story".
insaniak wrote: There are a lot of people out there who just dislike change, regardless of how it is executed. They like things the way they are, and the immediate reaction to any change is to dislike it, because it's not what they're used to. And those people tend to be the loudest complainers, from my experience, because change is 'ruining' the thing they like... but that doesn't automatically make change a bad thing.
Fair enough, I apologise for putting words in your mouth.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Why is the lore a good reason? It's just hashed out fiction. Or is it a case of "old good new bad?"
Because the lore is what makes 40k what it is. If you take it away, it is just a bunch of neat plastic with no meaning. Why did you pick "Inquisitor Gideon" as your nickname? Could it be that you read about him or Inquisitors in the lore and thought they are cool?
It is not about "old good, new bad". It is about what I personally think is in line with the existing lore and would make for a good addition/change.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: We've established that the lore is malleable, so it's not exactly a rock-solid argument. It's hard for players to hold the lore as sacrosanct when GW doesn't.
And every other 'argument' against female Marines has basically boiled down to, 'girls have cooties'. To me, they all look like a six-year-old boy sitting in his treehouse with a paper hat and stuffed tiger dropping water balloons on the girl from across the street.
You won't convince others from your own position if you just swipe their arguments under the rug of sexism instead of engaging with them and "that one argument that you bring is not an argument for me".
Edit:
The lore may be malleable, but not every change is of equal magnitude.
Outside of that the culture of brotherhood cannot exist in the same way or capacity in an intersex organization. It's just quite frankly not believable. The space marines would have to change to accommodate, and thus in my opinion lose their identity in the process.
This is commentary more about you, and how you view gender, rather than objective observation about reality.
No, your commentary is indicative of someone lacking rather in the logical department and stepping to ad hominem.
The comment I was responding to was about what the poster found believable. They do not find it believable, that group composed of men and women would and could feel similar kinship as comrades in arms than a group solely composed of men would. I, on the other hand, do find that believable. I don't think men and women are inherently and essentially mentally different, nor I believe that people of different genders need to see each other as different, especially when brought up in cultures and existing in an environment where such differences are not seen as culturally significant. What we find believable is subjective, and always says something about who we are. That is not an ad hominem. Now saying that one is lacking in logic department probably is though.
No. You’re quite right. Indeed part of the tragedy, from which the satire arises, is that Literal Son’s Of The Emperor, Genecrafted Demigods, have finally returned. And are kinda powerless to right the ship.
But we still have instance of individuals providing progress, of a kind.
It could be rediscovery of an STC fragment, a world rich in Archaeotech or Lost Forgeworld returning to the fold. Or, as with Cawl, the result of 10,000 years of R&D, based on the remains of the original Astartes project.
And yet you're arguing for a massive structural and cultural change in imperial society and their perception of their god's literal angels of death? Individuals being more liberal with their tolerance, sure. All of imperial society changing how they view the Adeptus Astartes, when even the Primaris are still met with hesitation and suspicion?
ya'll realize the callidus temple of assassins are all female as well, right? Same as the Sisters of Silence...
I see you’ve not bothered to read the rest of the thread. Allow me to recap.
Callidus Assassins are predominantly female. This is because, for reasons not explored in any depth in the background, Polymorphine works best on women. But note, they are not exclusively women.
Sisters of Silence? These guys are weird. Blanks are stupendously rare. Yet here, we have a military order comprised entirely of blanks. Yet, they’re also all women. Why is never really explored. But given they came from a single, existing cult, on a single planet? The concentration of Blanks must be treated as highly unusual, and perhaps a bit suspect. I’ve postulated in the past that there’s likely some gene science going on there - and they may even have some kind of Primarch analogous source. Are female candidates clones inherent to that tech, or just a cultural norm? We have absolutely no idea. It’s another of the many mysteries of 40K and indeed the Horus Heresy. But there must be something going on, because when the naturally occurring resource is mind bogglingly rare, there has to be something reason you’re then limiting yourself to just 50% of what’s available to work with.
Outside of that the culture of brotherhood cannot exist in the same way or capacity in an intersex organization. It's just quite frankly not believable. The space marines would have to change to accommodate, and thus in my opinion lose their identity in the process.
This is commentary more about you, and how you view gender, rather than objective observation about reality.
No, your commentary is indicative of someone lacking rather in the logical department and stepping to ad hominem.
Insulting someone and then accusing them of ad hominem in the same sentence is certainly an interesting choice
Outside of that the culture of brotherhood cannot exist in the same way or capacity in an intersex organization. It's just quite frankly not believable. The space marines would have to change to accommodate, and thus in my opinion lose their identity in the process.
This is commentary more about you, and how you view gender, rather than objective observation about reality.
No, your commentary is indicative of someone lacking rather in the logical department and stepping to ad hominem.
The comment I was responding to was about what the poster found believable. They do not find it believable, that group composed of men and women would and could feel similar kinship as comrades in arms than a group solely composed of men would. I, on the other hand, do find that believable. I don't think men and women are inherently and essentially mentally different, nor I believe that people of different genders need to see each other as different, especially when brought up in cultures and existing in an environment where such differences are not seen as culturally significant. What we find believable is subjective, and always says something about who we are. That is not an ad hominem. Now saying that one is lacking in logic department probably is though.
Why? There was too much data pointing to the biological basis of sex-based cognitive differences to ignore, Halpern says. For one thing, the animal-research findings resonated with sex-based differences ascribed to people. These findings continue to accrue. In a study of 34 rhesus monkeys, for example, males strongly preferred toys with wheels over plush toys, whereas females found plush toys likable. It would be tough to argue that the monkeys’ parents bought them sex-typed toys or that simian society encourages its male offspring to play more with trucks. A much more recent study established that boys and girls 9 to 17 months old — an age when children show few if any signs of recognizing either their own or other children’s sex — nonetheless show marked differences in their preference for stereotypically male versus stereotypically female toys.
Halpern and others have cataloged plenty of human behavioral differences. “These findings have all been replicated,” she says. Women excel in several measures of verbal ability — pretty much all of them, except for verbal analogies. Women’s reading comprehension and writing ability consistently exceed that of men, on average. They outperform men in tests of fine-motor coordination and perceptual speed. They’re more adept at retrieving information from long-term memory.
Men, on average, can more easily juggle items in working memory. They have superior visuospatial skills: They’re better at visualizing what happens when a complicated two- or three-dimensional shape is rotated in space, at correctly determining angles from the horizontal, at tracking moving objects and at aiming projectiles.
Insulting someone and then accusing them of ad hominem in the same sentence is certainly an interesting choice
Browbeating, denial of access to observeable reality and insinuating that reflects poorly on someone isn't an ad hominem? Even when observable reality is actually the supposed "enlightened" position of assuming equality where there is not?
Does that study include the brains of chemically, hypnotically and psychically brainwashed post-humans stuffed full of who-knows-what synthetic hormones and organs and dooberries and that? Specifically of participants subjected to such horrifying treatment and “enhancement” before their brain has finished its natural development?
Does that study include the brains of chemically, hypnotically and psychically brainwashed post-humans stuffed full of who-knows-what synthetic hormones and organs and dooberries and that? Specifically of participants subjected to such horrifying treatment and “enhancement” before their brain has finished its natural development?
It….its doesn’t?
Y’don’t say!
it doesn't need to since the "material" input already had these diffrences at what was it the age of?
Many of these cognitive differences appear quite early in life. “You see sex differences in spatial-visualization ability in 2- and 3-month-old infants,” Halpern says. Infant girls respond more readily to faces and begin talking earlier. Boys react earlier in infancy to experimentally induced perceptual discrepancies in their visual environment. In adulthood, women remain more oriented to faces, men to things.
Show us, beyond “nuh-uh”, how the Astartes Conversion process leaves the brain entirely untouched?
Only we’re talking about a level of technology used in varying ways. Thunder Warriors, Primarchs, Astartes, Cloneskeins, Goliaths, Abhumans. All share a seemingly common ancestry in technology.
If you don't like all male Marines, play a game that follows the way you think the world works, and stop trying to change the game as is
Men and women are different. They organize differently, develop differently, and have different roles that is based on biology, not ideology. If this offends you, then reality offends you. That is a you problem, not the rest of the world's problem.
Outside of that the culture of brotherhood cannot exist in the same way or capacity in an intersex organization. It's just quite frankly not believable. The space marines would have to change to accommodate, and thus in my opinion lose their identity in the process.
This is commentary more about you, and how you view gender, rather than objective observation about reality.
No, your commentary is indicative of someone lacking rather in the logical department and stepping to ad hominem.
The comment I was responding to was about what the poster found believable. They do not find it believable, that group composed of men and women would and could feel similar kinship as comrades in arms than a group solely composed of men would. I, on the other hand, do find that believable. I don't think men and women are inherently and essentially mentally different, nor I believe that people of different genders need to see each other as different, especially when brought up in cultures and existing in an environment where such differences are not seen as culturally significant. What we find believable is subjective, and always says something about who we are. That is not an ad hominem. Now saying that one is lacking in logic department probably is though.
Why? There was too much data pointing to the biological basis of sex-based cognitive differences to ignore, Halpern says. For one thing, the animal-research findings resonated with sex-based differences ascribed to people. These findings continue to accrue. In a study of 34 rhesus monkeys, for example, males strongly preferred toys with wheels over plush toys, whereas females found plush toys likable. It would be tough to argue that the monkeys’ parents bought them sex-typed toys or that simian society encourages its male offspring to play more with trucks. A much more recent study established that boys and girls 9 to 17 months old — an age when children show few if any signs of recognizing either their own or other children’s sex — nonetheless show marked differences in their preference for stereotypically male versus stereotypically female toys.
Halpern and others have cataloged plenty of human behavioral differences. “These findings have all been replicated,” she says. Women excel in several measures of verbal ability — pretty much all of them, except for verbal analogies. Women’s reading comprehension and writing ability consistently exceed that of men, on average. They outperform men in tests of fine-motor coordination and perceptual speed. They’re more adept at retrieving information from long-term memory.
Men, on average, can more easily juggle items in working memory. They have superior visuospatial skills: They’re better at visualizing what happens when a complicated two- or three-dimensional shape is rotated in space, at correctly determining angles from the horizontal, at tracking moving objects and at aiming projectiles.
Insulting someone and then accusing them of ad hominem in the same sentence is certainly an interesting choice
Browbeating, denial of access to observeable reality and insinuating that reflects poorly on someone isn't an ad hominem? Even when observable reality is actually the supposed "enlightened" position of assuming equality where there is not?
There are some physical differences in brains, yes, but that wasn't really the point being made, was it? The point was about nature vs nurture as root cause for behavior.
Sledgehammer stated that intersex brotherhood is unbelievable. This merely reveals they think it is unbelievable (note their lack of sources making this an opinion instead of a fact). So it seems like a pretty spot on reaction to me.
You're also conveniently sidestepping the fact that you're insulting someone while calling them out for ad hominem.
If you don't like all male Marines, play a game that follows the way you think the world works, and stop trying to change the game as is
Men and women are different. They organize differently, develop differently, and have different roles that is based on biology, not ideology. If this offends you, then reality offends you. That is a you problem, not the rest of the world's problem.
Except…we’re not discussing reality, are we?
We’re discussing a fictional process by which even a scrawny, manky, mutated Baalian recruit is transfigured into a strapping, beautiful, chemically, psychically and hypnotically indoctrinated killing machine which will live for centuries if not killed in battle. Aren’t we?
Here’s quick and incomplete list of things an Astartes can do that a regular human can’t.
1. Spit acid of sufficient potency to corrode steel (and by extensions, chew through metal objects in extremis. Not Xenomorph potency of course, as it takes time. But that pretty effing far from normal)
2. Gain knowledge by eating a brain
3. Put their body into suspended animation at will (recovering only with assistance though)
4. Digest pretty much anything
5. Put alternative halves of their brain to sleep with no appreciable difference in combat efficiency
6. Survive horrendous injuries which would kill a baseline human through shock and blood loss
And so, the argument is, with all the enhancements and tinkering that goes into making a human into an Astartes, there’s no reason to believe the brain wouldn’t or couldn’t also be fundamentally altered in the same process, making any differences between average male and female brains moot.
The best you can do is raise such sexual dimorphism as something the process would have to, for want of a more accurate word if one exists, solve. The existence of sexual dimorphism in humans does not mean they can’t be overcome, worked around, compensated for etc.
Because if we’re applying only modern day science? Humanity never left its home solar system, the Emperor never came to be (psychic powers not doing a real). And we probably wiped our idiot selves out well before the era of the Great Crusade via our own gross stupidity.
While I am not a fan from a lore perspective - in the same sense that i'd not be calling for male Eschers, misters of battle, or brothers of silence - I think you are barking up the wrong tree with this particular angle.
Marines are fundamentally rebuilt, a step short of full borg conversions in terms of how little of the original human remains. Some of the chapters even morph into mini-me copies of their primarch or full on dog-men. What you were before that is not the issue.
As for lore integrity vs inclusivity. It's really a issue of the marines being the big poster boy faction with all the lore built around them as the protagonists. If guard were the big #1 faction and marines were no more significant than sisters you'd probably not hear anything about it in the same way that no-one cares about the mono-sex necromunda gangs.
Show us, beyond “nuh-uh”, how the Astartes Conversion process leaves the brain entirely untouched?
Only we’re talking about a level of technology used in varying ways. Thunder Warriors, Primarchs, Astartes, Cloneskeins, Goliaths, Abhumans. All share a seemingly common ancestry in technology.
I have for one, never stated it doesn't? Because the point was the starting point which is at age 10-14 ish quite diffrent already However there was an argument made on the "supposed" basis of reality. Hence why i brought it up.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsptsci.3c00116 The next key issue will however be conversion and we now from pharmaceutical studies that women have a higher rate of adverse effects. Which, in combintation of beeing the "biological bottleneck" would be rather problematic.
shortymcnostrill wrote: [
There are some physical differences in brains, yes, but that wasn't really the point being made, was it? The point was about nature vs nurture as root cause for behavior.
Sledgehammer stated that intersex brotherhood is unbelievable. This merely reveals they think it is unbelievable (note their lack of sources making this an opinion instead of a fact). So it seems like a pretty spot on reaction to me.
You're also conveniently sidestepping the fact that you're insulting someone while calling them out for ad hominem.
Yes and the problem is that nurture is not 1 and nature 0 and therefore by beeing an exclusionary institution and culture beeing an expression of the individuals carrying it that position has more merit than it lets on.
I agree i could've absolutly formulated it nicer that his position lacks the logic or backig of reality however i also pointed out as to why i didn't-
And again you’re presenting modern day, factual information as an immovable barrier against an entirely fictional, and already stupidly far fetched process in which young boys are turned into something No Longer Human.
Sorry dude, but that’s a weak argument in the face of the question. Because as I said in my previous post (I accept you probably cross posted with me)?
If we limit 40K solely to modern science? There is no 40K. No warp travel. No psykers. No Bolters. No Lasguns. No anti-grav tech. No plasma weapons. No void shields. No Mind Impulse Unit. None of it.
So why is it people get so caught up on modern science only for the prospect of female Astartes?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: And again you’re presenting modern day, factual information as an immovable barrier against an entirely fictional, and already stupidly far fetched process in which young boys are turned into something No Longer Human.
Sorry dude, but that’s a weak argument in the face of the question. Because as I said in my previous post (I accept you probably cross posted with me)?
If we limit 40K solely to modern science? There is no 40K. No warp travel. No psykers. No Bolters. No Lasguns. No anti-grav tech. No plasma weapons. No void shields. No Mind Impulse Unit. None of it.
So why is it people get so caught up on modern science only for the prospect of female Astartes?
No. That is not how this works. You (not just you mad doc) are now switching from an argument of the basis of reality e.g. the stipulation that there "is no diffrence / the process would make any diffrence moot" which there is as the starting point would and does make a massive diffrence seemingly and a purely "nuture" anthropology is wrong into an argument on the basis of the lore which has canonised that it is "not possible".
And in that regard we can consider 40k canonised and you end up with the Toyota in Lotr area again when you change it around willy nilly and no Cawl is not a good tool to achieve that because Cawl already damaged the canon with primaris as it damaged tenants of the integrity of the canon namely tech stagnation f.e..
Gw can do it, but GW shouldn't do it in essence since it's canon of lore which makes its universe up and it's draw to it and by extention damaging the canon then is a bad idea.
I again refer you back to my clear, rooted solely in the background, observation that Astartes as we know them were the result of a salvage job, and one done against the clock.
To recap that for the umpteenth time?
Emperor began conquering Terra with the Thunder Warriors. Pound for pound more powerful than an Astartes, but shorter lived and apparently less stable.
The Emperor then takes that knowledge, and new stuff gleaned since, and creates the Primarchs as the absolute pinnacle of what he could create - At That Time.
He’d also created the custom job Custodes by this point too. These are enhanced in a tailored to the individual manner.
Up to that point, everything was going, so far as we can tell, to plan.
Then it starts falling apart. The Primarchs are abducted and lost to The Emperor, leaving him with either or both of not enough resources or time to start over.
And so what he does have left over is used to create the Astartes. By this point, the clock is running down, because as soon as the warp storms are cleared, the Great Crusade needs to be underway.
These Astartes are flawed, but Good Enough For Now, and allow The Emperor to complete his initial conquest and get everyone ready for what’s to come.
As the Great Crusade rumbles on, and the lost Primarchs recovered, some of the flaws in the Astartes Legions are rectified. So already, we’re seeing intent and ability to improve.
Then of course, the Heresy happens and everything goes horribly, hideously wrong. That war prevents The Emperor continuing his plans and projects, and he ends up pretty much dead.
For 10,000ish years? Thats about it. Except, Cawl has had the resources, remaining technology and knowledge, to continue The Emperor’s work. The end result is a superior, more sophisticated and seemingly stable, strain of Astartes, known as the Primaris. And he equips them with superior arms and armour.
But very little has been created by Cawl, if indeed he created anything. Developed it further than anyone else? Yes. But outright invented anything? Seemingly not.
And there’s no reason for us to believe that Cawl will just leave it there. The Emperor was happy enough to fold newly recovered/discovered stuff into existing forces and processes after all. And so, the potential for the Y Chromosome limitation to be overcome remains there.
Outside of that the culture of brotherhood cannot exist in the same way or capacity in an intersex organization. It's just quite frankly not believable. The space marines would have to change to accommodate, and thus in my opinion lose their identity in the process.
This is commentary more about you, and how you view gender, rather than objective observation about reality.
No, your commentary is indicative of someone lacking rather in the logical department and stepping to ad hominem.
The comment I was responding to was about what the poster found believable. They do not find it believable, that group composed of men and women would and could feel similar kinship as comrades in arms than a group solely composed of men would. I, on the other hand, do find that believable. I don't think men and women are inherently and essentially mentally different, nor I believe that people of different genders need to see each other as different, especially when brought up in cultures and existing in an environment where such differences are not seen as culturally significant. What we find believable is subjective, and always says something about who we are. That is not an ad hominem. Now saying that one is lacking in logic department probably is though.
Why? There was too much data pointing to the biological basis of sex-based cognitive differences to ignore, Halpern says. For one thing, the animal-research findings resonated with sex-based differences ascribed to people. These findings continue to accrue. In a study of 34 rhesus monkeys, for example, males strongly preferred toys with wheels over plush toys, whereas females found plush toys likable. It would be tough to argue that the monkeys’ parents bought them sex-typed toys or that simian society encourages its male offspring to play more with trucks. A much more recent study established that boys and girls 9 to 17 months old — an age when children show few if any signs of recognizing either their own or other children’s sex — nonetheless show marked differences in their preference for stereotypically male versus stereotypically female toys.
Halpern and others have cataloged plenty of human behavioral differences. “These findings have all been replicated,” she says. Women excel in several measures of verbal ability — pretty much all of them, except for verbal analogies. Women’s reading comprehension and writing ability consistently exceed that of men, on average. They outperform men in tests of fine-motor coordination and perceptual speed. They’re more adept at retrieving information from long-term memory.
Men, on average, can more easily juggle items in working memory. They have superior visuospatial skills: They’re better at visualizing what happens when a complicated two- or three-dimensional shape is rotated in space, at correctly determining angles from the horizontal, at tracking moving objects and at aiming projectiles.
Insulting someone and then accusing them of ad hominem in the same sentence is certainly an interesting choice
Browbeating, denial of access to observeable reality and insinuating that reflects poorly on someone isn't an ad hominem? Even when observable reality is actually the supposed "enlightened" position of assuming equality where there is not?
The article you link points out how most of these effects are very modest and only noticeable at the extremes. Plus, it is only the effects for very young individuals prior to socialisation that separate "nature" from "nurture". This not being an academic article, it doesn't actually go into any detail on the research presented so it is hard to examine how relevant these differences actually are.
Show us, beyond “nuh-uh”, how the Astartes Conversion process leaves the brain entirely untouched?
Only we’re talking about a level of technology used in varying ways. Thunder Warriors, Primarchs, Astartes, Cloneskeins, Goliaths, Abhumans. All share a seemingly common ancestry in technology.
I have for one, never stated it doesn't? Because the point was the starting point which is at age 10-14 ish quite diffrent already However there was an argument made on the "supposed" basis of reality. Hence why i brought it up.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsptsci.3c00116 The next key issue will however be conversion and we now from pharmaceutical studies that women have a higher rate of adverse effects. Which, in combintation of beeing the "biological bottleneck" would be rather problematic.
That doesn't necessarily translate into an inherent susceptibility to drug adverse effects though. For example, dosing is rarely done by weight, let alone by sex. Typical body sizes and distributions of fat, muscle etc are different between sexes so you would expect drug distributions to differ, yet dosing does not typically account for that with much precision if any. Do you think an 86kg man or a 73kg woman (UK mean weights by gender) will tolerate 80mg of atorvastatin better? The dosing is the same for both, but one is 17% heavier.
Take a typical dosing regime for IV contrast (the drug discussed in your linked article):
Total amount of contrast
In many protocols a standard dose is given related to the weight of the patient:
Weight < 75kg : 100cc
Weight 75-90kg: 120cc
Weight > 90kg : 150cc
In some protocols we always want to give the maximum dose of 150cc, like when you are looking for a pancreatic carcinoma or liver metastases.
Not a lot of dose graduation, and some indications always receive the maximum dose regardless of weight. You would expect that to lead to more adverse effects in women.
It is also why drugs are often not licensed for extremes of weight, like apixaban only being licensed from 40-120kg (more research is coming out to show it works outside these ranges, but that is new).
On top of this, a lot of medical science didn't even study women as much as men and frequently assumed they would be identical for decades.
Finally, adverse effects are frequently self-reported. There are cultural reasons why women are more likely to report than men. This shouldn't affect grade 3-5 adverse effects, and grade 2 should be pretty close, but grade 1 are essentially tolerable without intervention and form the majority of adverse effects.
All of these are factors which are very likely to be solvable via better medical knowledge and cultural changes in the next couple of centuries, let alone millennia.
It's literally stanford medicine magazine from stanford haighus running the gammut in the article with a multitude of studies, not just children so no, way to show you haven't even read the article.
Not Online!!! wrote: It's literally stanford medicine magazine from stanford haighus running the gammut in the article with a multitude of studies, not just children so no, way to show you haven't even read the article.
It is a non-academic article. There are no references, only interviews with scientists. An academic review references the studies and ideally should report on effect sizes when relevant, which the article points out they are without reporting any. But if you'd read the article, you would know this. This is an opinion piece.
Further, if you read my actual comment, you would see that I specifically said that the studies of young children are the only ones relevant to this debate of "nature" vs "nurture", i.e. genetics vs environment. Older children and adults are inextricably affected by the environment so it becomes impossible to differentiate. The young children have limited environmental influences. I made no claim about there only being articles about children. However, I think the mentions of studies in young children are the most relevant, but the article gives no references to the studies or indication of effect sizes at this age.
Studies in animals are only indicative of areas to look into for humans given that different animals have different behaviours and a study of 34 monkeys is pretty tiny too, so again, young children is more helpful.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Emperor began conquering Terra with the Thunder Warriors. Pound for pound more powerful than an Astartes, but shorter lived and apparently less stable.
The Emperor then takes that knowledge, and new stuff gleaned since, and creates the Primarchs as the absolute pinnacle of what he could create - At That Time.
Out of curiosity, are there female Thunder Warriors? What do the Horus Heresy novels have to say on that topic?
That I don’t know off the top of my head, but I’m yet to read all the Heresy novels. And we don’t know an awful lot about Thunder Warriors and what went into creating one.
But here are my thoughts on it from another, earlier thread.
Me, August last year wrote: Trouble here is we don’t know an awful lot about the Thunder Warrior and the process of turning a human into one.
However. We can look to House Goliath, which may have their genhanced origins in a similar technology.
They have three sources of new bodies. Vatborn (test tubes and rapid maturation to adult size) Natborn (babies!) and Unborn (regular humans altered, including physically adding new muscle mass).
Thunder Warriors appear closest to Unborn, as they too are definitely the result of a human conversion process. And House Goliath for one aren’t all male. They were intended to be sterile, but uhhhh, nature found a way.
So we can make limited inferences from that. If, and it’s such a big if were it a but it’d be of such proportions Sir Mix-A-Lot might say “steady on, La!”, House Goliath are indeed derived from the same base technology as Thunder Warriors? Then yes. Female Thunder Warriors are absolutely possible.
This is just speculation though, and I don’t offer a particular conclusion.
The brotherhood, self sacrifice and monastic inspiration inherent to the cultural makeup of space marines is exactly what makes them space marines.
I'm still amazed that there's people here arguing that, because I'm not a man, I can't have close sibling-platonic bonds, self-sacrifice, and can't engage in a quasi-religious lifestyle.
Sledgehammer wrote: The brotherhood, self sacrifice and monastic inspiration inherent to the cultural makeup of space marines is exactly what makes them space marines. To remove them from that is to make them no different than other power armored super soldiers from other franchises. The Adeptus Sororiatas is your foil to them. It is all in service to the thematic image of a society built on the bones of outmoded and archaic ways of thinking. "Progress" is at odds with the core themes of the franchise.
"Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim darkness of the far future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods." It kind of spells it out here....
40k is in many ways directly at odds with our sensibilities and moral compass, which has helped to insulate it from some of the broader cultural discourse ongoing in media. Please stop interjecting these issues into a setting that is in its essence diametrically opposed to that kind of discourse.
So if sexism is appropriate to the Imperium in 40k, why isn't racism?
Or homophobia?
Or transphobia?
I mean, I wouldn't consider any of those inappropriate to the Imperium.
I would think some degree of racism would make perfect sense, even if it didn't quite align with the current usage. e.g. I could well imagine people being looked down on if they've come from particular planets (or because they haven't come from particular planets).
I could see a degree of hatred towards gays as being less Homophobia and more a failure of duty. The Imperium relies on throwing billions of lives into the meat-grinder every year to keep itself alive, so it needs to secure a constant supply of children to replace them. I doubt they'd want to encourage anything that went against that - be it gays, abortions or any other such.
As for Transphobia, it's one of those things that could probably go either way. If someone declared themselves to be Trans, an Inquisitor might think they'd come under the influence of Chaos and light the flamethrower. Alternatively, a Tech-Priest might "solve" the problem by replacing most of their body with cybernetics to the point that they no longer have any recognisable gender. Or hormones. Or emotions.
Sledgehammer wrote:It is all in service to the thematic image of a society built on the bones of outmoded and archaic ways of thinking. "Progress" is at odds with the core themes of the franchise.
And yet, the society in question (the Imperium) isn't nearly as "outmoded and archaic" as you're claiming (IN CERTAIN AREAS).
The Imperium is awful, yes, but it is *also*:
- Not institutionally sexist (no restriction on gender in HLOT, Mechanicus are often depicted as post-gender, gender is irrelevant within the Astra Militarum and other civilian branches)
- Not institutionally racist (no mention of race being a hinderance to any IoM characters, and people of multiple ethnicities presented across a range of social strata)
- Not institutionally transphobic (multiple trans characters mentioned, without any hint of prejudice towards them on basis of their transition)
- Not institutionally homophobic/biphobic (gay/lesbian characters presented without question, tactical pansexuality taught to Inquisitorial agents)
The Imperium is nonsensically bureaucratic, fascistic, theocratic, xenophobic, wasteful, dogmatic, and inhuman, but it's not sexist.
So if sexism is appropriate to the Imperium in 40k, why isn't racism?
Or homophobia?
Or transphobia?
I mean, I wouldn't consider any of those inappropriate to the Imperium.
Except that we see absolutely no indication of it present. There is no institutional sexism, racism, or transphobia.
If GW changed that, then this argument would have legs, but *at present* this isn't true. And, honestly, I think the setting is better for that - the Imperium being so vast and uncaring that it simply doesn't care what your sexual orientation, gender identity or skin colour is, you're going to put on the one-size-fits-all flak jacket, grab the standard issue lasgun with one, maybe two magazines, and die like all the other people who came before you.
vipoid wrote: As for Transphobia, it's one of those things that could probably go either way. If someone declared themselves to be Trans, an Inquisitor might ...
...not care about the opinions of the peons as long as they loyal to the Imperium, or at least not loyal to something other than the Imperium.
'Purity' in the imperium is defined by how much you worship the Emperor, genetic purity (at birth and later), and cybernetic purity (both ways depending on group). I can't recall anything offhand in the source material outside of those three groups unless you include classism and declared purity (i.e. someone suitably powerful announces that you are pure, therefore you are regardless).
Sex - female marines, (trans)Gender - marines who identify as female.
vipoid wrote: I would think some degree of racism would make perfect sense, even if it didn't quite align with the current usage. e.g. I could well imagine people being looked down on if they've come from particular planets (or because they haven't come from particular planets).
There is a distinct difference between a Cadian not having a high opinion of a Guardsman from a cushy Segmentum Solar world a billion miles away from the frontiers of Imperial space, and hating someone because of the colour of their skin.
The latter is shown in 40k as a form of cultural drift between the various worlds of humanity where some think they are better than others due to classism or martial pride. We don't see people in the Imperial segregating those who are of a different race than them because humanity has moved beyond that specific concern.
Who cares if Brian has darker skin than Greg? There's literally a dude with a third arm over there.
I could see a degree of hatred towards gays as being less Homophobia and more a failure of duty. The Imperium relies on throwing billions of lives into the meat-grinder every year to keep itself alive, so it needs to secure a constant supply of children to replace them. I doubt they'd want to encourage anything that went against that - be it gays, abortions or any other such.
This has never been shown in any Warhammer book. The Imperium's population is so massive that it's statistically impossible not to have people popping out sprogs all over the place. The planet loses people to war? Baby boom because people survived the war and if not then the Imperium just ships a billion people from a Hive World with an overpopulation problem.
The Imperium doesn't care about the personal lives of its citizen as long as they go to work and worship the God Emperor.
As for Transphobia, it's one of those things that could probably go either way. If someone declared themselves to be Trans, an Inquisitor might think they'd come under the influence of Chaos and light the flamethrower. Alternatively, a Tech-Priest might "solve" the problem by replacing most of their body with cybernetics to the point that they no longer have any recognisable gender. Or hormones. Or emotions.
Poor taste making transphobia into a "Heresy!" joke chief.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: That I don’t know off the top of my head, but I’m yet to read all the Heresy novels. And we don’t know an awful lot about Thunder Warriors and what went into creating one.
But here are my thoughts on it from another, earlier thread.
Me, August last year wrote: Trouble here is we don’t know an awful lot about the Thunder Warrior and the process of turning a human into one.
However. We can look to House Goliath, which may have their genhanced origins in a similar technology.
They have three sources of new bodies. Vatborn (test tubes and rapid maturation to adult size) Natborn (babies!) and Unborn (regular humans altered, including physically adding new muscle mass).
Thunder Warriors appear closest to Unborn, as they too are definitely the result of a human conversion process. And House Goliath for one aren’t all male. They were intended to be sterile, but uhhhh, nature found a way.
So we can make limited inferences from that. If, and it’s such a big if were it a but it’d be of such proportions Sir Mix-A-Lot might say “steady on, La!”, House Goliath are indeed derived from the same base technology as Thunder Warriors? Then yes. Female Thunder Warriors are absolutely possible.
This is just speculation though, and I don’t offer a particular conclusion.
Thanks. I only made it a few pages into the first novel, so I have to rely on others to learn how much the Warhammer 40.000: What Really Happened series says on any given topic. I figured there might be some depiction of Thunder Warriors from off-hand comments here and there.
vipoid wrote: I would think some degree of racism would make perfect sense, even if it didn't quite align with the current usage. e.g. I could well imagine people being looked down on if they've come from particular planets (or because they haven't come from particular planets).
There is a distinct difference between a Cadian not having a high opinion of a Guardsman from a cushy Segmentum Solar world a billion miles away from the frontiers of Imperial space, and hating someone because of the colour of their skin.
The latter is shown in 40k as a form of cultural drift between the various worlds of humanity where some think they are better than others due to classism or martial pride. We don't see people in the Imperial segregating those who are of a different race than them because humanity has moved beyond that specific concern.
Who cares if Brian has darker skin than Greg? There's literally a dude with a third arm over there.
40k does explore themes of racism and bigotry, but for the most part quite conspicuously avoids real-world ethnic differences or religions that form the basis for racism in the modern world.
Instead mutants and abhumans and aliens or fictional religions are used as a stand in, which makes it "safe" to explore the bigotry without being so miserable for actual marginalised minorities to engage with.
vipoid wrote: I would think some degree of racism would make perfect sense, even if it didn't quite align with the current usage. e.g. I could well imagine people being looked down on if they've come from particular planets (or because they haven't come from particular planets).
There is a distinct difference between a Cadian not having a high opinion of a Guardsman from a cushy Segmentum Solar world a billion miles away from the frontiers of Imperial space, and hating someone because of the colour of their skin.
The latter is shown in 40k as a form of cultural drift between the various worlds of humanity where some think they are better than others due to classism or martial pride. We don't see people in the Imperial segregating those who are of a different race than them because humanity has moved beyond that specific concern.
Who cares if Brian has darker skin than Greg? There's literally a dude with a third arm over there.
40k does explore themes of racism and bigotry, but for the most part quite conspicuously avoids real-world ethnic differences or religions that form the basis for racism in the modern world.
Instead mutants and abhumans and aliens or fictional religions are used as a stand in, which makes it "safe" to explore the bigotry without being so miserable for actual marginalised minorities to engage with.
Yeah I agree with this. It operates like classic episodes of Star Trek, using stand-ins to make it's narrative points.
And I think it's important to remember that while the grand institutions of the Imperium generally don't care as long as any planet pays it's tithes, supplies guardsmen, purges and gives up it's psykers to the Black Ships, and worships the Emperor, everything else is fine. "Everything else" meaning any form of barbarism one can imagine, really. Classicism, slavery and religious persecution are explicitly mentioned, and the assumption that racism and sexism wouldn't/couldn't exist on any of the wildly diverse array of a million or so worlds is pretty wild, imo.
My interpretation of the Grimdark is the following: Imperium isn't itself racist or sexist, but it will totally tolerate racism or sexism as long as it's tithes are paid.
vipoid wrote: I would think some degree of racism would make perfect sense, even if it didn't quite align with the current usage. e.g. I could well imagine people being looked down on if they've come from particular planets (or because they haven't come from particular planets).
There is a distinct difference between a Cadian not having a high opinion of a Guardsman from a cushy Segmentum Solar world a billion miles away from the frontiers of Imperial space, and hating someone because of the colour of their skin.
The latter is shown in 40k as a form of cultural drift between the various worlds of humanity where some think they are better than others due to classism or martial pride. We don't see people in the Imperial segregating those who are of a different race than them because humanity has moved beyond that specific concern.
Who cares if Brian has darker skin than Greg? There's literally a dude with a third arm over there.
40k does explore themes of racism and bigotry, but for the most part quite conspicuously avoids real-world ethnic differences or religions that form the basis for racism in the modern world.
Instead mutants and abhumans and aliens or fictional religions are used as a stand in, which makes it "safe" to explore the bigotry without being so miserable for actual marginalised minorities to engage with.
Which is exactly why it's so conspicuous that "gender segregation" is explored this way through Space Marines, when it is so interestingly done through Sisters.
With Sisters, it explores the idea of gendered armed forces as a product of a legal loophole, and subverts the idea of war as a a "male" endeavour (which, obviously, it is not). It adds to the Imperium by demonstrating the absurd bureaucracy and legal/religious loopholes that are allowed to persist within it. It inverts the trope of "holy warriors on crusade" which is a historically male field, by making the church militant army an all-women force (minus the male leaders and auxiliaries which exist within it). The only issue with Sisters is that their aesthetic representation and methods of war are restricted, but this isn't inherently an issue: they occupy their own niche and design space, and that is "holy religious order with close ranged firepower".*
Space Marines being all male doesn't subvert anything, it only reinforces the idea that "the strong ubermensch must be male" (again, Custodes are stronger, but weren't a tabletop faction for decades, and aren't anywhere close to the real world market dominance of Space Marines), and selectively apes off of real-world organisations and tropes (not all Space Marine Chapters are based off of religious orders or monastic behaviours, ie. White Scars and Space Wolves are very clearly more centred on Mongolian and Norse aesthetics and behaviours respectively than the more monastic Chapters like Dark Angels and Black Templars - not to mention that mixed gender and all-female monastic orders also exist IRL). It doesn't demonstrate anything interesting about the Imperium: because the Imperium *isn't* institutionally sexist, the dogmatic creed is represented without needing to bring gender into it, and it would be perfectly easy to hone in on the "no-one really understands how geneseed works and how selective it is" by emphasising just how few people survive becoming a Space Marine, and that no-one has been able to fix the defects (not even Cawl!). Gender doesn't change anything intrinsic about what all Space Marines have in common.
The idea that 40k engages in "safe" bigotry is genuinely very interesting and helps them portray an Imperium which, I repeat, is awful and backwards and "the cruellest regime imaginable" without also perpetuating those behaviours and attitudes IRL. This is why Space Marines are so conspicuous in this: them being mono-gendered doesn't subvert or say anything interesting about Space Marines or 40k in general, it's either couched in made-up pseudoscience which perpetuates RL myths of bioessentialism (in *prepubescent children*, I might add) or directly perpetuates IRL sexist attitudes from history.
The other elements of bigotry in 40k are translated into non-human forms, except this one.
*I mention this simply to ward off comments along the lines of "Sisters are the same as Space Marines" - Sisters are an army defined by a certain aesthetic and gameplay design. Space Marines are, if anything, defined by their variety of aesthetics and gameplay choices, as a blank slate faction which no other faction matches. And that is okay! But they aren't the same thing, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Now whilst I have actually studied developmental psychology a moderate amount and even neuropsychology a bit, I certainly am not an any sort of an expert in the field, and I'd wager neither are you, so we probably are not going to conclusively solve this matter here on a wargaming forum.
But none of this was even my point. It is about how one views gender, whether you view the another gender as some sort of essentially different other or not. And to me the claim that men and women could not have similar bonds of comradeship than just men can, is utterly ludicrous. We are all just people in the end, and every individual is different, and those differences between individuals are far greater than any statistical differences between genders that might or might not exist.
Insectum7 wrote: My interpretation of the Grimdark is the following: Imperium isn't itself racist or sexist, but it will totally tolerate racism or sexism as long as it's tithes are paid.
Agreed, with the addendum that this also includes bigotry towards groups which typically wouldn't be on the receiving end IRL (ie. worlds where being male is considered negatively, and women occupy the highest roles in the social strata).
vipoid wrote: I would think some degree of racism would make perfect sense, even if it didn't quite align with the current usage. e.g. I could well imagine people being looked down on if they've come from particular planets (or because they haven't come from particular planets).
There is a distinct difference between a Cadian not having a high opinion of a Guardsman from a cushy Segmentum Solar world a billion miles away from the frontiers of Imperial space, and hating someone because of the colour of their skin.
The latter is shown in 40k as a form of cultural drift between the various worlds of humanity where some think they are better than others due to classism or martial pride. We don't see people in the Imperial segregating those who are of a different race than them because humanity has moved beyond that specific concern.
Who cares if Brian has darker skin than Greg? There's literally a dude with a third arm over there.
40k does explore themes of racism and bigotry, but for the most part quite conspicuously avoids real-world ethnic differences or religions that form the basis for racism in the modern world.
Instead mutants and abhumans and aliens or fictional religions are used as a stand in, which makes it "safe" to explore the bigotry without being so miserable for actual marginalised minorities to engage with.
This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.
This one real world -ism feels as jarring in “you will not be missed” Warhammer as Star Trek would feel jarring following up their black/white aliens episode with an episode about Earth Jews not being admitted to Starfleet.
Insectum7 wrote: My interpretation of the Grimdark is the following: Imperium isn't itself racist or sexist, but it will totally tolerate racism or sexism as long as it's tithes are paid.
Agreed, with the addendum that this also includes bigotry towards groups which typically wouldn't be on the receiving end IRL (ie. worlds where being male is considered negatively, and women occupy the highest roles in the social strata).
Insectum7 wrote: My interpretation of the Grimdark is the following: Imperium isn't itself racist or sexist, but it will totally tolerate racism or sexism as long as it's tithes are paid.
Agreed, with the addendum that this also includes bigotry towards groups which typically wouldn't be on the receiving end IRL (ie. worlds where being male is considered negatively, and women occupy the highest roles in the social strata).
100% agree. That should all be fair play.
We see this very thing in House Escher, essentially a matriarchal nation state with a population that probably dwarfs modern Earth several times over.
vipoid wrote: I would think some degree of racism would make perfect sense, even if it didn't quite align with the current usage. e.g. I could well imagine people being looked down on if they've come from particular planets (or because they haven't come from particular planets).
There is a distinct difference between a Cadian not having a high opinion of a Guardsman from a cushy Segmentum Solar world a billion miles away from the frontiers of Imperial space, and hating someone because of the colour of their skin.
The latter is shown in 40k as a form of cultural drift between the various worlds of humanity where some think they are better than others due to classism or martial pride. We don't see people in the Imperial segregating those who are of a different race than them because humanity has moved beyond that specific concern.
Who cares if Brian has darker skin than Greg? There's literally a dude with a third arm over there.
40k does explore themes of racism and bigotry, but for the most part quite conspicuously avoids real-world ethnic differences or religions that form the basis for racism in the modern world.
Instead mutants and abhumans and aliens or fictional religions are used as a stand in, which makes it "safe" to explore the bigotry without being so miserable for actual marginalised minorities to engage with.
This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.
This one real world -ism feels as jarring in “you will not be missed” Warhammer as Star Trek would feel jarring following up their black/white aliens episode with an episode about Earth Jews not being admitted to Starfleet.
I totally appreciate this observation, but I still feel like it's appropriately chalked up to being a product aimed at teenage boys and young men, and having lore that's resonant with the historical precedent of male soldiery and modern day segregation in sports. I think we can argue all day about nature vs. nurture, but the "art" is still imitating "life" for whatever reason, and I feel it has a right to do so.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.
This one real world -ism feels as jarring in “you will not be missed” Warhammer as Star Trek would feel jarring following up their black/white aliens episode with an episode about Earth Jews not being admitted to Starfleet.
I totally appreciate this observation, but I still feel like it's appropriately chalked up to being a product aimed at teenage boys and young men, and having lore that's resonant with the historical precedent of male soldiery and modern day segregation in sports. I think we can argue all day about nature vs. nurture, but the "art" is still imitating "life" for whatever reason, and I feel it has a right to do so.
Honest question, but do you think the same should be said of race in the same regard?
If40k is aimed at a majority white demographic (I don't have any data to confirm this, I might add, but the majority of 40k fans appear to be white-identifying), then should it cater to a white audience, and have "rules" in place which mean that the poster faction should be all-white, even if there are other factions which have non-white representation?
Because that's the situation happening with gender in Space Marines: the product (Space Marines) is "aimed" at a certain demographic (young men), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only male Space Marines), and have other demographics (women) represented in other, less prominent, products.
If the same were to be applied to the race demographic, it would look like this: the product (Space Marines) being "aimed" at a certain demographic (white), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only white Space Marines) and have other demographics (non-white ethnicities) represented in other, less prominent, products.
I just want to see that this is a consistent belief - that GW should have a "right" to "imitate life" (even if that imitation of life is couched in misleading and exclusionary beliefs), across all things, and not just gender?
Or, to put it more simply, why is gender allowed to be used as a tool to reflect fictional bigotry, but not race?
(And, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that 40k is only for white people, is only played by white people, or anything of the sort - just like how 40k isn't "for" men, or is only played by men. And to be clear, I do not want race to be used to reflect fictional bigotry - I just also don't want sex or gender to be used for it as well).
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Also? Why would largely helmeted models potentially being ladies under the skidlid reduce the appeal to young men?
In other words, how does greater representation of the global demographic impact the majority?
Right. What is being asked, is for the lore to say that it is possible for marines to be women, and have some female heads for people who want to model them that way. It seems wild to me that this would be something that would alienate significant number of players. No one would be even required to have lady marines in their army if they didn't want to.
Outside of that the culture of brotherhood cannot exist in the same way or capacity in an intersex organization. It's just quite frankly not believable. The space marines would have to change to accommodate, and thus in my opinion lose their identity in the process.
This is commentary more about you, and how you view gender, rather than objective observation about reality.
No, your commentary is indicative of someone lacking rather in the logical department and stepping to ad hominem.
The comment I was responding to was about what the poster found believable. They do not find it believable, that group composed of men and women would and could feel similar kinship as comrades in arms than a group solely composed of men would. I, on the other hand, do find that believable. I don't think men and women are inherently and essentially mentally different, nor I believe that people of different genders need to see each other as different, especially when brought up in cultures and existing in an environment where such differences are not seen as culturally significant. What we find believable is subjective, and always says something about who we are. That is not an ad hominem. Now saying that one is lacking in logic department probably is though.
Why? There was too much data pointing to the biological basis of sex-based cognitive differences to ignore, Halpern says. For one thing, the animal-research findings resonated with sex-based differences ascribed to people. These findings continue to accrue. In a study of 34 rhesus monkeys, for example, males strongly preferred toys with wheels over plush toys, whereas females found plush toys likable. It would be tough to argue that the monkeys’ parents bought them sex-typed toys or that simian society encourages its male offspring to play more with trucks. A much more recent study established that boys and girls 9 to 17 months old — an age when children show few if any signs of recognizing either their own or other children’s sex — nonetheless show marked differences in their preference for stereotypically male versus stereotypically female toys.
Halpern and others have cataloged plenty of human behavioral differences. “These findings have all been replicated,” she says. Women excel in several measures of verbal ability — pretty much all of them, except for verbal analogies. Women’s reading comprehension and writing ability consistently exceed that of men, on average. They outperform men in tests of fine-motor coordination and perceptual speed. They’re more adept at retrieving information from long-term memory.
Men, on average, can more easily juggle items in working memory. They have superior visuospatial skills: They’re better at visualizing what happens when a complicated two- or three-dimensional shape is rotated in space, at correctly determining angles from the horizontal, at tracking moving objects and at aiming projectiles.
Insulting someone and then accusing them of ad hominem in the same sentence is certainly an interesting choice
Browbeating, denial of access to observeable reality and insinuating that reflects poorly on someone isn't an ad hominem? Even when observable reality is actually the supposed "enlightened" position of assuming equality where there is not?
There are some physical differences in brains, yes, but that wasn't really the point being made, was it? The point was about nature vs nurture as root cause for behavior.
Sledgehammer stated that intersex brotherhood is unbelievable. This merely reveals they think it is unbelievable (note their lack of sources making this an opinion instead of a fact). So it seems like a pretty spot on reaction to me.
You're also conveniently sidestepping the fact that you're insulting someone while calling them out for ad hominem.
Let me be clearer.
Brotherhood by the definition I was using can only be obtained from the close fraternal bonds between men. The same can be said for sisterhood. Mutually respectful relationships between groups of people in an intersex organization can and do occur regularly, however the dynamic and culture of how they operate are inherently different.
Space marines are a brotherhood and thus to add female space marines would completely destroy the relationship and culture that only a group of men can share together. The same can be said for the Sororitas.
The speech before Againcourt in Henry the Vth is a great example.
Spoiler:
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin, Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words—
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester—
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Sledgehammer wrote: Space marines are a brotherhood and thus to add female space marines would completely destroy the relationship and culture that only a group of men can share together. The same can be said for the Sororitas.
And what sort of "relationship and culture" is that which ONLY men can have, and no-one else can? And what examples of that can be seen in the relationships and culture of Space Marines in 40k, which, as you say, could ONLY be expressed if those people identified as male?
Empirically, please.
The speech before Againcourt in Henry the Vth is a great example.
Spoiler:
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin, Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words—
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester—
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
I don't see how that expresses feelings that can ONLY be held by someone who identifies as male.
Also of relevance might be this quote, also from Shakespeare (a playwright, not a military leader): "Full of sound and fury; Signifying nothing." (Macbeth, 5:5:27-28)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Also? Why would largely helmeted models potentially being ladies under the skidlid reduce the appeal to young men?
In other words, how does greater representation of the global demographic impact the majority?
Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women. To say that men cannot and do not share a unique and special bond between each other stemming from their very nature and the ensuing experiences derived from that, is to deny the experience of the audience and those who are drawn to those themes.
No one is or should be asking for male representation in the Sororitas because it is offensive to the ideals of sisterhood that the entire faction is built on. The very same can be said for the space marines.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.
This one real world -ism feels as jarring in “you will not be missed” Warhammer as Star Trek would feel jarring following up their black/white aliens episode with an episode about Earth Jews not being admitted to Starfleet.
I totally appreciate this observation, but I still feel like it's appropriately chalked up to being a product aimed at teenage boys and young men, and having lore that's resonant with the historical precedent of male soldiery and modern day segregation in sports. I think we can argue all day about nature vs. nurture, but the "art" is still imitating "life" for whatever reason, and I feel it has a right to do so.
Honest question, but do you think the same should be said of race in the same regard?
If40k is aimed at a majority white demographic (I don't have any data to confirm this, I might add, but the majority of 40k fans appear to be white-identifying), then should it cater to a white audience, and have "rules" in place which mean that the poster faction should be all-white, even if there are other factions which have non-white representation?
Because that's the situation happening with gender in Space Marines: the product (Space Marines) is "aimed" at a certain demographic (young men), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only male Space Marines), and have other demographics (women) represented in other, less prominent, products.
If the same were to be applied to the race demographic, it would look like this: the product (Space Marines) being "aimed" at a certain demographic (white), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only white Space Marines) and have other demographics (non-white ethnicities) represented in other, less prominent, products.
I just want to see that this is a consistent belief - that GW should have a "right" to "imitate life" (even if that imitation of life is couched in misleading and exclusionary beliefs), across all things, and not just gender?
Or, to put it more simply, why is gender allowed to be used as a tool to reflect fictional bigotry, but not race?
(And, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that 40k is only for white people, is only played by white people, or anything of the sort - just like how 40k isn't "for" men, or is only played by men. And to be clear, I do not want race to be used to reflect fictional bigotry - I just also don't want sex or gender to be used for it as well).
The short answer is "no", as I don't see race and sex/gender as being interchangeable in this regard. For better or worse, the differences between men and women (culturally and/or biologically) are/have been recognized across cultures regardless of race. An example would be that men have done most of the fighting, regardless of race. Whereas differences between races are largely imagined, with minor exceptions like the fact that direct sunlight is constantly trying to kill light skinned people like myself.
Sledgehammer wrote: Space marines are a brotherhood and thus to add female space marines would completely destroy the relationship and culture that only a group of men can share together. The same can be said for the Sororitas.
And what sort of "relationship and culture" is that which ONLY men can have, and no-one else can? And what examples of that can be seen in the relationships and culture of Space Marines in 40k, which, as you say, could ONLY be expressed if those people identified as male?
Empirically, please.
The speech before Againcourt in Henry the Vth is a great example.
Spoiler:
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin, Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words—
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester—
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
I don't see how that expresses feelings that can ONLY be held by someone who identifies as male.
Also of relevance might be this quote, also from Shakespeare (a playwright, not a military leader): "Full of sound and fury; Signifying nothing." (Macbeth, 5:5:27-28)
Have you ever been in a fraternal society? Have you ever been in a group of men? The dynamic is different and to claim otherwise is to deny the truth.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Also? Why would largely helmeted models potentially being ladies under the skidlid reduce the appeal to young men?
In other words, how does greater representation of the global demographic impact the majority?
Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women. To say that men cannot and do not share a unique and special bond between each other stemming from their very nature and the ensuing experiences derived from that, is to deny the experience of the audience and those who are drawn to those themes.
No one is or should be asking for male representation in the Sororitas because it is offensive to the ideals of sisterhood that the entire faction is built on. The very same can be said for the space marines.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sledgehammer wrote: Space marines are a brotherhood and thus to add female space marines would completely destroy the relationship and culture that only a group of men can share together. The same can be said for the Sororitas.
And what sort of "relationship and culture" is that which ONLY men can have, and no-one else can? And what examples of that can be seen in the relationships and culture of Space Marines in 40k, which, as you say, could ONLY be expressed if those people identified as male?
Empirically, please.
The speech before Againcourt in Henry the Vth is a great example.
Spoiler:
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin, Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words—
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester—
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
I don't see how that expresses feelings that can ONLY be held by someone who identifies as male.
Also of relevance might be this quote, also from Shakespeare (a playwright, not a military leader): "Full of sound and fury; Signifying nothing." (Macbeth, 5:5:27-28)
What the good Smudge said.
Also, as a point that should be noted, you can run a 500 point game of Sisters without taking a single female model or including Legends.
For Marines, you can't run ANY legal list without men. You could, if you can find some female servitor models, have 165 points of women with a Legends unit.
Sledgehammer wrote: Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women. To say that men cannot and do not share a unique and special bond between each other stemming from their very nature and the ensuing experiences derived from that, is to deny the experience of the audience and those who are drawn to those themes.
If you feel that way, I am sorry for you. To me this reads like you see women as some sort of alien other to whom you cannot relate to or who you cannot see as human similar to yourself. I don't think this is healthy mindset that should be pandered to or encouraged.
Sledgehammer wrote:Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women.
I asked you to demonstrate this in an empirical manner - and in a way that acknowledges queer people who are neither men or women.
No one is or should be asking for male representation in the Sororitas because it is offensive to the ideals of sisterhood that the entire faction is built on. The very same can be said for the space marines.
Define these ideals of "Sisterhood" and how they are fundamentally different to "Brotherhood", without basing it purely off of the genders of those involved.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.
This one real world -ism feels as jarring in “you will not be missed” Warhammer as Star Trek would feel jarring following up their black/white aliens episode with an episode about Earth Jews not being admitted to Starfleet.
I totally appreciate this observation, but I still feel like it's appropriately chalked up to being a product aimed at teenage boys and young men, and having lore that's resonant with the historical precedent of male soldiery and modern day segregation in sports. I think we can argue all day about nature vs. nurture, but the "art" is still imitating "life" for whatever reason, and I feel it has a right to do so.
Honest question, but do you think the same should be said of race in the same regard?
If40k is aimed at a majority white demographic (I don't have any data to confirm this, I might add, but the majority of 40k fans appear to be white-identifying), then should it cater to a white audience, and have "rules" in place which mean that the poster faction should be all-white, even if there are other factions which have non-white representation?
Because that's the situation happening with gender in Space Marines: the product (Space Marines) is "aimed" at a certain demographic (young men), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only male Space Marines), and have other demographics (women) represented in other, less prominent, products.
If the same were to be applied to the race demographic, it would look like this: the product (Space Marines) being "aimed" at a certain demographic (white), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only white Space Marines) and have other demographics (non-white ethnicities) represented in other, less prominent, products.
I just want to see that this is a consistent belief - that GW should have a "right" to "imitate life" (even if that imitation of life is couched in misleading and exclusionary beliefs), across all things, and not just gender?
Or, to put it more simply, why is gender allowed to be used as a tool to reflect fictional bigotry, but not race?
(And, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that 40k is only for white people, is only played by white people, or anything of the sort - just like how 40k isn't "for" men, or is only played by men. And to be clear, I do not want race to be used to reflect fictional bigotry - I just also don't want sex or gender to be used for it as well).
The short answer is "no", as I don't see race and sex/gender as being interchangeable in this regard. For better or worse, the differences between men and women (culturally and/or biologically) are/have been recognized across cultures regardless of race. An example would be that men have done most of the fighting, regardless of race. Whereas differences between races are largely imagined, with minor exceptions like the fact that direct sunlight is constantly trying to kill light skinned people like myself.
In which case, I disagree.
But, like I said - WHY should gender be an acceptable tool to reflect bigotry?
Sledgehammer wrote:Have you ever been in a fraternal society? Have you ever been in a group of men?
My presence within them would change the dynamic of them, according to you.
The dynamic is different and to claim otherwise is to deny the truth.
Brotherhood by the definition I was using can only be obtained from the close fraternal bonds between men. The same can be said for sisterhood. Mutually respectful relationships between groups of people in an intersex organization can and do occur regularly, however the dynamic and culture of how they operate are inherently different.
Space marines are a brotherhood and thus to add female space marines would completely destroy the relationship and culture that only a group of men can share together. The same can be said for the Sororitas.
How? Space Marines don't have regular human emotions so there's not going to be boys' nights where people talk about their feelings with a safe group. There's no "we can talk about guy problems because there are no girls around" because there are no problems that would affect a male Astartes differently from a female Astartes. They're living weapons, torn from their humanity. If anything a male Astartes and a female Astartes have more in common with each other than any other human out there.
Astartes are not men like regular humans. The human condition doesn't affect them because they aren't human. They look vaguely human, they sound vaguely human, they might even act vaguely human from time to time but they lack the spark that makes a human what they are.
Sledgehammer wrote:Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women.
I asked you to demonstrate this in an empirical manner - and in a way that acknowledges queer people who are neither men or women.
No one is or should be asking for male representation in the Sororitas because it is offensive to the ideals of sisterhood that the entire faction is built on. The very same can be said for the space marines.
Define these ideals of "Sisterhood" and how they are fundamentally different to "Brotherhood", without basing it purely off of the genders of those involved.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.
This one real world -ism feels as jarring in “you will not be missed” Warhammer as Star Trek would feel jarring following up their black/white aliens episode with an episode about Earth Jews not being admitted to Starfleet.
I totally appreciate this observation, but I still feel like it's appropriately chalked up to being a product aimed at teenage boys and young men, and having lore that's resonant with the historical precedent of male soldiery and modern day segregation in sports. I think we can argue all day about nature vs. nurture, but the "art" is still imitating "life" for whatever reason, and I feel it has a right to do so.
Honest question, but do you think the same should be said of race in the same regard?
If40k is aimed at a majority white demographic (I don't have any data to confirm this, I might add, but the majority of 40k fans appear to be white-identifying), then should it cater to a white audience, and have "rules" in place which mean that the poster faction should be all-white, even if there are other factions which have non-white representation?
Because that's the situation happening with gender in Space Marines: the product (Space Marines) is "aimed" at a certain demographic (young men), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only male Space Marines), and have other demographics (women) represented in other, less prominent, products.
If the same were to be applied to the race demographic, it would look like this: the product (Space Marines) being "aimed" at a certain demographic (white), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only white Space Marines) and have other demographics (non-white ethnicities) represented in other, less prominent, products.
I just want to see that this is a consistent belief - that GW should have a "right" to "imitate life" (even if that imitation of life is couched in misleading and exclusionary beliefs), across all things, and not just gender?
Or, to put it more simply, why is gender allowed to be used as a tool to reflect fictional bigotry, but not race?
(And, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that 40k is only for white people, is only played by white people, or anything of the sort - just like how 40k isn't "for" men, or is only played by men. And to be clear, I do not want race to be used to reflect fictional bigotry - I just also don't want sex or gender to be used for it as well).
The short answer is "no", as I don't see race and sex/gender as being interchangeable in this regard. For better or worse, the differences between men and women (culturally and/or biologically) are/have been recognized across cultures regardless of race. An example would be that men have done most of the fighting, regardless of race. Whereas differences between races are largely imagined, with minor exceptions like the fact that direct sunlight is constantly trying to kill light skinned people like myself.
In which case, I disagree.
But, like I said - WHY should gender be an acceptable tool to reflect bigotry?
Sledgehammer wrote:Have you ever been in a fraternal society? Have you ever been in a group of men?
My presence within them would change the dynamic of them, according to you.
The dynamic is different and to claim otherwise is to deny the truth.
I deny your "truth", because you cannot prove it.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2869101/
Spoiler:
An important factor that influences friendship norms and values is gender. Research has documented a variety of gender differences in friendship patterns, such as the observation that women’s friendships are closer, more cooperative, and more supportive than those of men (Johnson 1996; Rubin 1985). Theories suggest that differing cultural constructions of gender, and unequal positions in the social structure, are apt to result in men and women espousing dissimilar social norms for their friendships. The second purpose of this research, therefore, was to investigate the extent to which gender influences same- and cross-gender friendship for older adults. Finally, we know relatively little about the actual content of the friendship norms of older adults. What are some of the typical normative expectations for this group of individuals? In what cases are norms definitive, and when do they tend to be contradictory? A final goal was to use qualitative data from open-ended questions to identify and illustrate variations in friendship norms in a contemporary group of older adults.
The ability to create lasting, trust-based friendships makes it possible for humans to form large and coherent groups. The recent literature on the evolution of sociality and on the network dynamics of human societies suggests that large human groups have a layered structure generated by emotionally supported social relationships. There are also gender differences in adult social style which may involve different trade-offs between the quantity and quality of friendships. Although many have suggested that females tend to focus on intimate relations with a few other females, while males build larger, more hierarchical coalitions, the existence of such gender differences is disputed and data from adults is scarce. Here, we present cross-cultural evidence for gender differences in the preference for close friendships. We use a sample of ∼112,000 profile pictures from nine world regions posted on a popular social networking site to show that, in self-selected displays of social relationships, women favour dyadic relations, whereas men favour larger, all-male cliques. These apparently different solutions to quality-quantity trade-offs suggest a universal and fundamental difference in the function of close friendships for the two sexes.
The paradox is straightforward: Societies with higher levels of wealth, political equality, and women in the workforce show larger personal, social, and political differences between men and women. In other words, the wealthier and more egalitarian the country, the larger the gender differences.
vipoid wrote: I would think some degree of racism would make perfect sense, even if it didn't quite align with the current usage. e.g. I could well imagine people being looked down on if they've come from particular planets (or because they haven't come from particular planets).
There is a distinct difference between a Cadian not having a high opinion of a Guardsman from a cushy Segmentum Solar world a billion miles away from the frontiers of Imperial space, and hating someone because of the colour of their skin.
The latter is shown in 40k as a form of cultural drift between the various worlds of humanity where some think they are better than others due to classism or martial pride. We don't see people in the Imperial segregating those who are of a different race than them because humanity has moved beyond that specific concern.
Who cares if Brian has darker skin than Greg? There's literally a dude with a third arm over there.
40k does explore themes of racism and bigotry, but for the most part quite conspicuously avoids real-world ethnic differences or religions that form the basis for racism in the modern world.
Instead mutants and abhumans and aliens or fictional religions are used as a stand in, which makes it "safe" to explore the bigotry without being so miserable for actual marginalised minorities to engage with.
This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.
This one real world -ism feels as jarring in “you will not be missed” Warhammer as Star Trek would feel jarring following up their black/white aliens episode with an episode about Earth Jews not being admitted to Starfleet.
I totally appreciate this observation, but I still feel like it's appropriately chalked up to being a product aimed at teenage boys and young men, and having lore that's resonant with the historical precedent of male soldiery and modern day segregation in sports. I think we can argue all day about nature vs. nurture, but the "art" is still imitating "life" for whatever reason, and I feel it has a right to do so.
I have two rebuttals:
1. GW has been making their products more inclusive for at least a decade, so it’s not a product aimed at teenage boys any more, so much as at everyone. By your own logic, GW needs to abandon the boys-only teenage boy bait in favor of “everyone’s a marine, yay” max shareholder return on investment bait.
2. Make soldiery and sports enthusiasm being something punk-flavored 40k would take serious and want to include makes no sense. The closest classic 40k got to that was the homoerotic pain glove fluff. The whole middle-finger-to-Thatcher vibe of the old material doesn’t give at all with keeping male spaces sacrosanct. I think that’s why it’s so much easier to believe the decision was made by marketing after some poor sales than by any of the creative team who made the good (and bad) background in the good ol’ days. If Space marines are not boys-only to take the piss*, they shouldn’t be boys-only at all.
*And I’ve explained why they don’t feel like they are. Again, jarring to to the setting.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The idea that 40k engages in "safe" bigotry is genuinely very interesting and helps them portray an Imperium which, I repeat, is awful and backwards and "the cruellest regime imaginable" without also perpetuating those behaviours and attitudes IRL. This is why Space Marines are so conspicuous in this: them being mono-gendered doesn't subvert or say anything interesting about Space Marines or 40k in general, it's either couched in made-up pseudoscience which perpetuates RL myths of bioessentialism (in *prepubescent children*, I might add) or directly perpetuates IRL sexist attitudes from history.
The other elements of bigotry in 40k are translated into non-human forms, except this one.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.
I don't understand what you are talking about. We know the real life reason why SM are male only. GW simply came up with *any* kind of explanation after experiencing that nobody wanted their hideous "Woman in Power Armor" models. It has nothing to do with "bioessentialism" or "sexism". It was good ol' "capitalism" at that time.
Also, is there a second definition of "bigotry" that I'm not aware of?
Merriam Webster: obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices
Oxford Learner's Dictionary: the state of feeling, or the act of expressing, strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions
How is the true-within-that-fiction fact "Space Marines are all men because their creation process is only compatible with males" satisfying these definitions? If the Imperium would only take boys despite the process being compatible with both genders and resulting in the exact same outcome, then we could talk about bigotry. I don't see the connection here.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Honest question, but do you think the same should be said of race in the same regard?
If40k is aimed at a majority white demographic (I don't have any data to confirm this, I might add, but the majority of 40k fans appear to be white-identifying), then should it cater to a white audience, and have "rules" in place which mean that the poster faction should be all-white, even if there are other factions which have non-white representation?
You didn't ask me, but let me answer this anyway, as I think we are coming close to a very important point here:
If the lore for the past 40 years stated that all Space Marines end up looking like a Mongol / White Scar, I would argue with you just the same if people called for a better representation of Caucasian people within that faction. I have the feeling that some people in this thread think my POV is along the lines of "I'm represented, got mine, don't care about yours", when I'm purely interested in the integrity of the lore and the setting.
The point that SM get all the spotlight and that this is the actual issue with how they are portrayed gets mentioned alot in this discussion. So if we would just shift that spotlight to other factions, then the "lore-nuts" would be happy as well as the "FSM-nuts", no? Then nobody has to give up anything.
insaniak wrote: It's not an unknown reason, though. The reason is that the spectacularly ugly female models that GW tried to sell in the late '80s weren't popular, and so they added a line about space marines being men to the background to explain why the models they sold from then on were all men.
Gabs and Jayne were first on sale in '88 - that's after the release of Rogue Trader, after the RTB01 plastic releases, after the initial marine model release, and long after the marines were defined as a 'boys only' club. Though before geneseeds.
Sledgehammer wrote:Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women.
I asked you to demonstrate this in an empirical manner - and in a way that acknowledges queer people who are neither men or women.
No one is or should be asking for male representation in the Sororitas because it is offensive to the ideals of sisterhood that the entire faction is built on. The very same can be said for the space marines.
Define these ideals of "Sisterhood" and how they are fundamentally different to "Brotherhood", without basing it purely off of the genders of those involved.
Sledgehammer wrote:Have you ever been in a fraternal society? Have you ever been in a group of men?
My presence within them would change the dynamic of them, according to you.
The dynamic is different and to claim otherwise is to deny the truth.
I deny your "truth", because you cannot prove it.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2869101/
Spoiler:
An important factor that influences friendship norms and values is gender. Research has documented a variety of gender differences in friendship patterns, such as the observation that women’s friendships are closer, more cooperative, and more supportive than those of men (Johnson 1996; Rubin 1985). Theories suggest that differing cultural constructions of gender, and unequal positions in the social structure, are apt to result in men and women espousing dissimilar social norms for their friendships. The second purpose of this research, therefore, was to investigate the extent to which gender influences same- and cross-gender friendship for older adults. Finally, we know relatively little about the actual content of the friendship norms of older adults. What are some of the typical normative expectations for this group of individuals? In what cases are norms definitive, and when do they tend to be contradictory? A final goal was to use qualitative data from open-ended questions to identify and illustrate variations in friendship norms in a contemporary group of older adults.
The ability to create lasting, trust-based friendships makes it possible for humans to form large and coherent groups. The recent literature on the evolution of sociality and on the network dynamics of human societies suggests that large human groups have a layered structure generated by emotionally supported social relationships. There are also gender differences in adult social style which may involve different trade-offs between the quantity and quality of friendships. Although many have suggested that females tend to focus on intimate relations with a few other females, while males build larger, more hierarchical coalitions, the existence of such gender differences is disputed and data from adults is scarce. Here, we present cross-cultural evidence for gender differences in the preference for close friendships. We use a sample of ∼112,000 profile pictures from nine world regions posted on a popular social networking site to show that, in self-selected displays of social relationships, women favour dyadic relations, whereas men favour larger, all-male cliques. These apparently different solutions to quality-quantity trade-offs suggest a universal and fundamental difference in the function of close friendships for the two sexes.
The paradox is straightforward: Societies with higher levels of wealth, political equality, and women in the workforce show larger personal, social, and political differences between men and women. In other words, the wealthier and more egalitarian the country, the larger the gender differences.
That's not what I asked for.
Define Sisterhood and Brotherhood as mutually exclusive cultures, without bringing into account the genders of the people performing those relationships, and factoring in the existence of queer people within those cultures.
Second, your selective reading of those sources misses these points: your first source says: "Differences between the two genders tend to be of degree, rather than of kind (Duck and Wright 1993; Felmlee 1999). The results lend support to a growing body of theory and research that stresses a modest, and not exaggerated, role of gender in relational behavior (e.g., Adams and Allen 1998; Walker 1994). As noted by Ridgeway and Correll (2004), the influence of cultural beliefs about gender tends to moderate, or bias, behaviors that are predominately shaped by contextual factors. [...] On a general level, men and women of both genders, and individuals across a relatively broad age range, share many of the same broad, cultural norms for their close ties: norms of trust, commitment, and respect."
Contextual factors. Not inherent to biology. Did you actually read this paper, or did you just scan for headlines?
Your second source makes no ackowledgement of these cultural and social pressures and contextual factors - ergo, cannot be argued as "inherent". Your third isn't even an academic source.
You've not proven anything yet, certainly not some kind of biological truth that male-male relationships are ALWAYS different to women-women relationships, or even male-women ones in some sort of categorisable, mutually exclusive manner.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Also? Why would largely helmeted models potentially being ladies under the skidlid reduce the appeal to young men?
In other words, how does greater representation of the global demographic impact the majority?
Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women. To say that men cannot and do not share a unique and special bond between each other stemming from their very nature and the ensuing experiences derived from that, is to deny the experience of the audience and those who are drawn to those themes.
.
If I may be blunt,
This sounds like a point of view you have that you feel is universal. Maybe it even does resonate for a large number of young men. But to me, people I’ve spoken to IRL and online, and judging by these threads a significant number of gamers, it absolutely does not resonate. It comes across exclusionary, sexist in a patronizing “I’m not a bigot but” kind of way, and is really, really off putting. Like, lots of people would stop frequenting your FLGS kind of off-putting. It’s the kind of off-putting that GW has been working to minimize in their stores. Your post is a strong argument for GW to make FSM just to keep their stores welcoming for mainstream society.
PS: the sororitas are not build on bonds of sisterhood. At all. They’re based on a loophole for church ladies. Read a book, please. I recommend the old Witchhubters codex or the FFGRPG book on the Sisters, which is excellent.
Also, the average age range for that first study is 73 from 2009.
Forgive me if I don't take advice from the generation of "Beating your wife makes you a man" and "There's no such thing as being gay you just aren't manly enough".
Sledgehammer wrote:Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women.
I asked you to demonstrate this in an empirical manner - and in a way that acknowledges queer people who are neither men or women.
No one is or should be asking for male representation in the Sororitas because it is offensive to the ideals of sisterhood that the entire faction is built on. The very same can be said for the space marines.
Define these ideals of "Sisterhood" and how they are fundamentally different to "Brotherhood", without basing it purely off of the genders of those involved.
Sledgehammer wrote:Have you ever been in a fraternal society? Have you ever been in a group of men?
My presence within them would change the dynamic of them, according to you.
The dynamic is different and to claim otherwise is to deny the truth.
I deny your "truth", because you cannot prove it.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2869101/
Spoiler:
An important factor that influences friendship norms and values is gender. Research has documented a variety of gender differences in friendship patterns, such as the observation that women’s friendships are closer, more cooperative, and more supportive than those of men (Johnson 1996; Rubin 1985). Theories suggest that differing cultural constructions of gender, and unequal positions in the social structure, are apt to result in men and women espousing dissimilar social norms for their friendships. The second purpose of this research, therefore, was to investigate the extent to which gender influences same- and cross-gender friendship for older adults. Finally, we know relatively little about the actual content of the friendship norms of older adults. What are some of the typical normative expectations for this group of individuals? In what cases are norms definitive, and when do they tend to be contradictory? A final goal was to use qualitative data from open-ended questions to identify and illustrate variations in friendship norms in a contemporary group of older adults.
The ability to create lasting, trust-based friendships makes it possible for humans to form large and coherent groups. The recent literature on the evolution of sociality and on the network dynamics of human societies suggests that large human groups have a layered structure generated by emotionally supported social relationships. There are also gender differences in adult social style which may involve different trade-offs between the quantity and quality of friendships. Although many have suggested that females tend to focus on intimate relations with a few other females, while males build larger, more hierarchical coalitions, the existence of such gender differences is disputed and data from adults is scarce. Here, we present cross-cultural evidence for gender differences in the preference for close friendships. We use a sample of ∼112,000 profile pictures from nine world regions posted on a popular social networking site to show that, in self-selected displays of social relationships, women favour dyadic relations, whereas men favour larger, all-male cliques. These apparently different solutions to quality-quantity trade-offs suggest a universal and fundamental difference in the function of close friendships for the two sexes.
The paradox is straightforward: Societies with higher levels of wealth, political equality, and women in the workforce show larger personal, social, and political differences between men and women. In other words, the wealthier and more egalitarian the country, the larger the gender differences.
That's not what I asked for.
Define Sisterhood and Brotherhood as mutually exclusive cultures, without bringing into account the genders of the people performing those relationships, and factoring in the existence of queer people within those cultures.
Second, your selective reading of those sources misses these points: your first source says:
"Differences between the two genders tend to be of degree, rather than of kind (Duck and Wright 1993; Felmlee 1999). The results lend support to a growing body of theory and research that stresses a modest, and not exaggerated, role of gender in relational behavior (e.g., Adams and Allen 1998; Walker 1994). As noted by Ridgeway and Correll (2004), the influence of cultural beliefs about gender tends to moderate, or bias, behaviors that are predominately shaped by contextual factors. [...]
On a general level, men and women of both genders, and individuals across a relatively broad age range, share many of the same broad, cultural norms for their close ties: norms of trust, commitment, and respect."
Contextual factors. Not inherent to biology. Did you actually read this paper, or did you just scan for headlines?
Your second source makes no ackowledgement of these cultural and social pressures and contextual factors - ergo, cannot be argued as "inherent".
Your third isn't even an academic source.
You've not proven anything yet, certainly not some kind of biological truth that male-male relationships are ALWAYS different to women-women relationships, or even male-women ones in some sort of categorisable, mutually exclusive manner.
CONCLUSION
The reported evidence indicates that higher levels of economic development and gender equality favor the manifestation of gender differences in preferences across countries. Our results highlight the critical role of availability of material and social resources, as well as gender-equal access to these resources, in facilitating the independent formation and expression of gender-specific preferences.
Use your words, please.
And “People have different preferences” is not the same as “Men and women are fundamentally incapable of sharing the same bonds of camaraderie.”
Gert wrote: Also, the average age range for that first study is 73 from 2009.
Forgive me if I don't take advice from the generation of "Beating your wife makes you a man" and "There's no such thing as being gay you just aren't manly enough".
You can't just dismiss the findings because you don't like a generation of people.
Whether it be biological or sociological the study says there is a difference.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The idea that 40k engages in "safe" bigotry is genuinely very interesting and helps them portray an Imperium which, I repeat, is awful and backwards and "the cruellest regime imaginable" without also perpetuating those behaviours and attitudes IRL. This is why Space Marines are so conspicuous in this: them being mono-gendered doesn't subvert or say anything interesting about Space Marines or 40k in general, it's either couched in made-up pseudoscience which perpetuates RL myths of bioessentialism (in *prepubescent children*, I might add) or directly perpetuates IRL sexist attitudes from history.
The other elements of bigotry in 40k are translated into non-human forms, except this one.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.
I don't understand what you are talking about. We know the real life reason why SM are male only. GW simply came up with *any* kind of explanation after experiencing that nobody wanted their hideous "Woman in Power Armor" models. It has nothing to do with "bioessentialism" or "sexism". It was good ol' "capitalism" at that time.
At the time, yes, agreed.
But it's been, what, nearly forty years? What's the excuse for it now?
GW have changed things before. They will continue to do so. So what is the reason they shouldn't change this, beyond an argument of stasis?
Also, is there a second definition of "bigotry" that I'm not aware of?
Merriam Webster: obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices
Oxford Learner's Dictionary: the state of feeling, or the act of expressing, strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions
How is the true-within-that-fiction fact "Space Marines are all men because their creation process is only compatible with males" satisfying these definitions? If the Imperium would only take boys despite the process being compatible with both genders and resulting in the exact same outcome, then we could talk about bigotry. I don't see the connection here.
Okay, so here's where there's disagreement from within the anti-FSM arguments.
Some arguments go that "it's okay that there aren't any women Astartes, because it's representative that the Imperium/the Emperor is sexist and evil and hates women" - which would be a case for bigotry.
This is what we mean by there's a variety of arguments on why FSM aren't allowed to exist, and why they often run at odds with eachother.
We have Sledgehammer's, which seems to be "women are inherently different from men, and Space Marine identity is tied to being male" (which is horribly reductive and based in a very warped understanding of how actual humans work, not to mention which erases queer identities).
We've had examples earlier in this thread along the lines of "the Imperium is evil and sexist, which is why they don't let women in the Space Marines" (which fails in the face of the Imperium being institutionally egalitarian, with women serving with distinction in the Imperial Guard, Mechanicus, Inquisition, HLOT and the Custodes).
We have yours, which is "Forty years ago, GW said that the surgery doesn't work on them, so we should accept that at face value, because change is bad" (which doesn't hold up when we consider how often GW retcon and change their own lore, and relies on us all agreeing that the lore shouldn't ever be changed, which we very clearly don't agree on).
So, to round back out, when we talk about bigotry, it is in reference to the people who are claiming "Space Marines can only be men because men are the only people capable of Brotherhood TM" or "Space Marines can only be men because the Imperium is sexist and evil".
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Honest question, but do you think the same should be said of race in the same regard?
If40k is aimed at a majority white demographic (I don't have any data to confirm this, I might add, but the majority of 40k fans appear to be white-identifying), then should it cater to a white audience, and have "rules" in place which mean that the poster faction should be all-white, even if there are other factions which have non-white representation?
You didn't ask me, but let me answer this anyway, as I think we are coming close to a very important point here:
If the lore for the past 40 years stated that all Space Marines end up looking like a Mongol / White Scar, I would argue with you just the same if people called for a better representation of Caucasian people within that faction. I have the feeling that some people in this thread think my POV is along the lines of "I'm represented, got mine, don't care about yours", when I'm purely interested in the integrity of the lore and the setting.
And what sort of integrity is that? GW haven't shown any "integrity" on stasis - they'll change the lore if it suits them.
I don't believe in "integrity for the sake of integrity". I care about what will tell a better story. Would Space Marines being all-male make them more interesting, especially while they remain as the face of 40k? For me, no, I don't think so, and so it should change.
I'm not arguing for "change for the sake of change": I'm arguing for us to evaluate the benefits of something changing, versus it not changing. I don't believe in "it should stay the same because that's how it is right now", because that is the death of creativity, IMO.
Sledgehammer wrote: You can't just dismiss the findings because you don't like a generation of people.
Whether it be biological or sociological the study says there is a difference.
I can dismiss them based on the fact the attitudes of the surveyed people are outdated and rooted in a time when society deemed it acceptable to beat women for standing up for themselves, segregated races, and chemically castrate homosexuals.
The one study you picked with actual people in it is 15 years old and only features people whose attitudes are outdated even by 2009 standards.
Also just to ruin it even more, the age they are gives them an average of 70 years to be nurtured by the society around them in turn shaping their ideals and opinions. The amount of societal change from when they were born to 2009 was massive. Phones went from a system where you call an operator to ask them to put you through to the person you want, to calling the person and seeing their face on the phone in your hand. You've picked the worst example to prove your point.
Sledgehammer wrote:Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women.
I asked you to demonstrate this in an empirical manner - and in a way that acknowledges queer people who are neither men or women.
No one is or should be asking for male representation in the Sororitas because it is offensive to the ideals of sisterhood that the entire faction is built on. The very same can be said for the space marines.
Define these ideals of "Sisterhood" and how they are fundamentally different to "Brotherhood", without basing it purely off of the genders of those involved.
Sledgehammer wrote:Have you ever been in a fraternal society? Have you ever been in a group of men?
My presence within them would change the dynamic of them, according to you.
The dynamic is different and to claim otherwise is to deny the truth.
I deny your "truth", because you cannot prove it.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2869101/
Spoiler:
An important factor that influences friendship norms and values is gender. Research has documented a variety of gender differences in friendship patterns, such as the observation that women’s friendships are closer, more cooperative, and more supportive than those of men (Johnson 1996; Rubin 1985). Theories suggest that differing cultural constructions of gender, and unequal positions in the social structure, are apt to result in men and women espousing dissimilar social norms for their friendships. The second purpose of this research, therefore, was to investigate the extent to which gender influences same- and cross-gender friendship for older adults. Finally, we know relatively little about the actual content of the friendship norms of older adults. What are some of the typical normative expectations for this group of individuals? In what cases are norms definitive, and when do they tend to be contradictory? A final goal was to use qualitative data from open-ended questions to identify and illustrate variations in friendship norms in a contemporary group of older adults.
The ability to create lasting, trust-based friendships makes it possible for humans to form large and coherent groups. The recent literature on the evolution of sociality and on the network dynamics of human societies suggests that large human groups have a layered structure generated by emotionally supported social relationships. There are also gender differences in adult social style which may involve different trade-offs between the quantity and quality of friendships. Although many have suggested that females tend to focus on intimate relations with a few other females, while males build larger, more hierarchical coalitions, the existence of such gender differences is disputed and data from adults is scarce. Here, we present cross-cultural evidence for gender differences in the preference for close friendships. We use a sample of ∼112,000 profile pictures from nine world regions posted on a popular social networking site to show that, in self-selected displays of social relationships, women favour dyadic relations, whereas men favour larger, all-male cliques. These apparently different solutions to quality-quantity trade-offs suggest a universal and fundamental difference in the function of close friendships for the two sexes.
The paradox is straightforward: Societies with higher levels of wealth, political equality, and women in the workforce show larger personal, social, and political differences between men and women. In other words, the wealthier and more egalitarian the country, the larger the gender differences.
That's not what I asked for.
Define Sisterhood and Brotherhood as mutually exclusive cultures, without bringing into account the genders of the people performing those relationships, and factoring in the existence of queer people within those cultures.
Second, your selective reading of those sources misses these points: your first source says:
"Differences between the two genders tend to be of degree, rather than of kind (Duck and Wright 1993; Felmlee 1999). The results lend support to a growing body of theory and research that stresses a modest, and not exaggerated, role of gender in relational behavior (e.g., Adams and Allen 1998; Walker 1994). As noted by Ridgeway and Correll (2004), the influence of cultural beliefs about gender tends to moderate, or bias, behaviors that are predominately shaped by contextual factors. [...]
On a general level, men and women of both genders, and individuals across a relatively broad age range, share many of the same broad, cultural norms for their close ties: norms of trust, commitment, and respect."
Contextual factors. Not inherent to biology. Did you actually read this paper, or did you just scan for headlines?
Your second source makes no ackowledgement of these cultural and social pressures and contextual factors - ergo, cannot be argued as "inherent".
Your third isn't even an academic source.
You've not proven anything yet, certainly not some kind of biological truth that male-male relationships are ALWAYS different to women-women relationships, or even male-women ones in some sort of categorisable, mutually exclusive manner.
CONCLUSION
The reported evidence indicates that higher levels of economic development and gender equality favor the manifestation of gender differences in preferences across countries. Our results highlight the critical role of availability of material and social resources, as well as gender-equal access to these resources, in facilitating the independent formation and expression of gender-specific preferences.
Still not answering my first question, I see.
Second, did you actually read this article? Because it looks to me like you're just trawling through headlines, and not actually reading what these articles are saying, as well as continuing to ignore contextual causes and learned social behaviours and expectations (which, funnily enough, your first source actually highlighted!).
You're not saying anything with these studies, and they're not relevant to the conversation. If you were in an academic field, you'd be laughed out of the room over these.
Statistical differences are not essentialistic differences. It might be true that men are more likely to like football than women (probably for sociological reasons, but that doesn't even matter for this.) Doesn't make liking football a male trait, not liking it a female trait, doesn't mean that all men like football nor that no woman does.
Gert wrote: Also, the average age range for that first study is 73 from 2009.
Forgive me if I don't take advice from the generation of "Beating your wife makes you a man" and "There's no such thing as being gay you just aren't manly enough".
You can't just dismiss the findings because you don't like a generation of people.
You *can* dismiss them as being not indicative of wider population sets and cultural trends though. You can't make a claim like "men are inherently different to women" based on that sort of sample.
JNAProductions wrote: Use your words, please. And “People have different preferences” is not the same as “Men and women are fundamentally incapable of sharing the same bonds of camaraderie.”
When access to resources and social status become increasingly even. biological, sociological, and developmental differences in the sexes become increasingly apparent.
If sex truly did have little to no affect on development or preferences then the more equal a society would yield less differences in the sexes. The data proves otherwise. The gender paradox is real, however the reasons are disputed. Regardless of the reasons, there are differences and they become more pronounced when societies become increasingly equal....
Continuing to claim there is no difference in male and female relations or preferences is madness. There is a plethora of studies that support this.
JNAProductions wrote: Use your words, please.
And “People have different preferences” is not the same as “Men and women are fundamentally incapable of sharing the same bonds of camaraderie.”
When access to resources and social status become increasingly even. biological, sociological, and developmental differences in the sexes become increasingly apparent.
And yet, the study makes no distinction or acknowledgement of these as being the result of contextual and continued learned behaviours from the societies in which these people belong to.
I'm asking if you can prove that there is an inherent difference (ie, not caused by external factors like culture!) between the relationships formed by men and women (and which also factors for queer identities).
I'm also asking (again) for you to define brotherhood and sisterhood in mutually exclusive terms, without mentioning the gender of those people performing those relationships.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.
This one real world -ism feels as jarring in “you will not be missed” Warhammer as Star Trek would feel jarring following up their black/white aliens episode with an episode about Earth Jews not being admitted to Starfleet.
I totally appreciate this observation, but I still feel like it's appropriately chalked up to being a product aimed at teenage boys and young men, and having lore that's resonant with the historical precedent of male soldiery and modern day segregation in sports. I think we can argue all day about nature vs. nurture, but the "art" is still imitating "life" for whatever reason, and I feel it has a right to do so.
Honest question, but do you think the same should be said of race in the same regard?
If40k is aimed at a majority white demographic (I don't have any data to confirm this, I might add, but the majority of 40k fans appear to be white-identifying), then should it cater to a white audience, and have "rules" in place which mean that the poster faction should be all-white, even if there are other factions which have non-white representation?
Because that's the situation happening with gender in Space Marines: the product (Space Marines) is "aimed" at a certain demographic (young men), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only male Space Marines), and have other demographics (women) represented in other, less prominent, products.
If the same were to be applied to the race demographic, it would look like this: the product (Space Marines) being "aimed" at a certain demographic (white), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only white Space Marines) and have other demographics (non-white ethnicities) represented in other, less prominent, products.
I just want to see that this is a consistent belief - that GW should have a "right" to "imitate life" (even if that imitation of life is couched in misleading and exclusionary beliefs), across all things, and not just gender?
Or, to put it more simply, why is gender allowed to be used as a tool to reflect fictional bigotry, but not race?
(And, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that 40k is only for white people, is only played by white people, or anything of the sort - just like how 40k isn't "for" men, or is only played by men. And to be clear, I do not want race to be used to reflect fictional bigotry - I just also don't want sex or gender to be used for it as well).
The short answer is "no", as I don't see race and sex/gender as being interchangeable in this regard. For better or worse, the differences between men and women (culturally and/or biologically) are/have been recognized across cultures regardless of race. An example would be that men have done most of the fighting, regardless of race. Whereas differences between races are largely imagined, with minor exceptions like the fact that direct sunlight is constantly trying to kill light skinned people like myself.
In which case, I disagree.
But, like I said - WHY should gender be an acceptable tool to reflect bigotry?
To the first: The comparison I would draw is that it would be unthinkable to segregate sports by race, but segregating the sexes in sport still seems like an appropriate measure to take in most cases.
To the second: I think when we're talking about fictional universes and fantasies, it's ok to draw lines here and there based on your target audiences or the point you're trying to make. Wakanda or Wonder Woman's Island of the Amazons come to mind. As does My Little Pony, for that matter.
vipoid wrote: I would think some degree of racism would make perfect sense, even if it didn't quite align with the current usage. e.g. I could well imagine people being looked down on if they've come from particular planets (or because they haven't come from particular planets).
There is a distinct difference between a Cadian not having a high opinion of a Guardsman from a cushy Segmentum Solar world a billion miles away from the frontiers of Imperial space, and hating someone because of the colour of their skin.
The latter is shown in 40k as a form of cultural drift between the various worlds of humanity where some think they are better than others due to classism or martial pride. We don't see people in the Imperial segregating those who are of a different race than them because humanity has moved beyond that specific concern.
Who cares if Brian has darker skin than Greg? There's literally a dude with a third arm over there.
40k does explore themes of racism and bigotry, but for the most part quite conspicuously avoids real-world ethnic differences or religions that form the basis for racism in the modern world.
Instead mutants and abhumans and aliens or fictional religions are used as a stand in, which makes it "safe" to explore the bigotry without being so miserable for actual marginalised minorities to engage with.
This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.
This one real world -ism feels as jarring in “you will not be missed” Warhammer as Star Trek would feel jarring following up their black/white aliens episode with an episode about Earth Jews not being admitted to Starfleet.
I totally appreciate this observation, but I still feel like it's appropriately chalked up to being a product aimed at teenage boys and young men, and having lore that's resonant with the historical precedent of male soldiery and modern day segregation in sports. I think we can argue all day about nature vs. nurture, but the "art" is still imitating "life" for whatever reason, and I feel it has a right to do so.
I have two rebuttals:
1. GW has been making their products more inclusive for at least a decade, so it’s not a product aimed at teenage boys any more, so much as at everyone. By your own logic, GW needs to abandon the boys-only teenage boy bait in favor of “everyone’s a marine, yay” max shareholder return on investment bait.
2. Make soldiery and sports enthusiasm being something punk-flavored 40k would take serious and want to include makes no sense. The closest classic 40k got to that was the homoerotic pain glove fluff. The whole middle-finger-to-Thatcher vibe of the old material doesn’t give at all with keeping male spaces sacrosanct. I think that’s why it’s so much easier to believe the decision was made by marketing after some poor sales than by any of the creative team who made the good (and bad) background in the good ol’ days. If Space marines are not boys-only to take the piss*, they shouldn’t be boys-only at all.
*And I’ve explained why they don’t feel like they are. Again, jarring to to the setting.
My argument here is that Space Marines aren't the only thing being sold. There are many, many factions now, and only one of them (well, subset) plays into the 12 year old hyper-masculine fantasy in the way that Space Marines do. They may be the poster faction, because that may be GWs primary audience, but GW has provided a whole host of other options for those that aren't into Space Marines.
Of course those options aren't treated equally, but probably the buyers of 40k aren't distributed equally either. Is it a chicken and egg problem? Sure. I would prefer more attention to non-Space Marines personally. But in the abstract I think the distribution is fine, for the Imperials we have:
Custodes -(mixed)
Space Marines -(male)
Sisters of Battle -(female)
Imperial Guard/PDF -(mixed)
Mechanicus -(mixed)
Knights -(mixed)
Inquisitors -(mixed)
And all the others not on the tabletop like Administratum, Arbites, being mixed as well.
Sledgehammer wrote: Continuing to claim there is no difference in male and female relations or preferences is madness. There is a plethora of studies that support this.
Mate, the first study you linked argued that there were more similarities than differences, and that the differences were likely the cause of external cultural contexts - ie, people behaving in a certain way because that's how their culture had raised them. That's not "inherent", and has no bearing at all on what a supersoldier in the year 40,000 pumped full of space steroids and hypno-indoctrination would behave like.
Sledgehammer wrote: No one is or should be asking for male representation in the Sororitas because it is offensive to the ideals of sisterhood that the entire faction is built on.
The Sororitas is not built on ideals of 'sisterhood'. It's built on an anachronistic joke that they're not men.
Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women. To say that men cannot and do not share a unique and special bond between each other stemming from their very nature and the ensuing experiences derived from that, is to deny the experience of the audience and those who are drawn to those themes.
This, ultimately, is the crux of the disagreement. You apparently view the sacred bond of shared manliness as aspirational and a biological truth. Those on the other side of the argument view it as an anachronism in a universe that is otherwise largely gender-blind.
Here's the thing - for fantasy world-building to work, there needs to be internal consistency. Everything needs to run through a filter of how that made-up universe works.
In the real world, we're bombarded from birth with the idea that boys and girls are different. You're expected to play different games, told that you're supposed to be interested in different things, like different colours. When you hit your teens, you start being told that it's impossible for men and women to be friends without wanting to sleep with each other, and that we're all supposed to behave like someone's misinterpretation of how wolf packs work because, I dunno, reasons.
None of that applies to 40K. In the wider Imperium, nobody cares if you're a boy or a girl. And that would apply even more so to Marines, who are barely even human anymore. Marines aren't told that they need to provide for their families or they're failing the world. They're not told that it's suspicious if they hang out with female friends, and they would literally have no romantic interest in said female friends anyway, because those interests are removed by their modification and indoctination. They have one imperative, and that's to be a good marine. And within that lens, it's extremely unlikely that a male marine would view a female marine as being 'other'... she would just be another marine.
But here's the other thing: Even if you want your marines to have those fraternal bonds of shared machismo... there is absolutely no reason that the introduction of female marines needs to change that for you. Men still exist, even though women also exist.
Insectum7 wrote: To the first: The comparison I would draw is that it would be unthinkable to segregate sports by race, but segregating the sexes in sport still seems like an appropriate measure to take in most cases.
To the second: I think when we're talking about fictional universes and fantasies, it's ok to draw lines here and there based on your target audiences or the point you're trying to make. Wakanda or Wonder Woman's Island of the Amazons come to mind. As does My Little Pony, for that matter.
The point of Wakanda not helping outsiders is made out to be a bad thing though. The whole plot of BP1 was that Wakanda had shut itself off from the world instead of using its position to be a world leader in combating poverty and starvation.
And the major theme behind the Amazons across the history of Wonder Woman is that in cutting themselves off from the world of man, they have become fearful and insular rather than championing equality and fairness.
I don't see how not allowing female SM makes a super strong point about how bad the Imperium is when we already have despotism, genocide, eternal war, poverty, starvation, slavery, and the casual brutality of people dying because a three was supposed to be a four on a spreadsheet made from human skin. It's not exactly vital to the founding pillars of "40k universe is bad mkay".
Right. If people feel deeply about this no-girls-allowed brotherhood, their army could still be like that even if some other people were allowed to play mixed-gender chapters.
Sledgehammer wrote: Space marines are a brotherhood and thus to add female space marines would completely destroy the relationship and culture that only a group of men can share together. The same can be said for the Sororitas.
And what sort of "relationship and culture" is that which ONLY men can have, and no-one else can? And what examples of that can be seen in the relationships and culture of Space Marines in 40k, which, as you say, could ONLY be expressed if those people identified as male?
Empirically, please.
The speech before Againcourt in Henry the Vth is a great example.
Spoiler:
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin, Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words—
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester—
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
I don't see how that expresses feelings that can ONLY be held by someone who identifies as male.
Also of relevance might be this quote, also from Shakespeare (a playwright, not a military leader): "Full of sound and fury; Signifying nothing." (Macbeth, 5:5:27-28)
Have you ever been in a fraternal society? Have you ever been in a group of men? The dynamic is different and to claim otherwise is to deny the truth.
I'd say most of the possibly different dynamics you hint at would disappear if that group of "men" was completely asexual, brainwashed, religiously fanatic and raised in a society were apparently gender roles don’t really are a question. We're not talking about a group of male german drunkards on their way to Mallorca here.
Also, any study about that stuff can only tell us something about the current 20th/21st century state of affairs. Gender differences mostly are a result of culture, and we're talking about a world that's so far away from our culture that... well, the people that build the pyramids are far closer to us than anything 40000 years (or 28000 years) in the future.
Sledgehammer wrote: Continuing to claim there is no difference in male and female relations or preferences is madness. There is a plethora of studies that support this.
Mate, the first study you linked argued that there were more similarities than differences, and that the differences were likely the cause of external cultural contexts - ie, people behaving in a certain way because that's how their culture had raised them. That's not "inherent", and has no bearing at all on what a supersoldier in the year 40,000 pumped full of space steroids and hypno-indoctrination would behave like.
There are more similarities than differences, but those differences can be profound. You can deny it all you want, but there are differences and there is nothing wrong with having a faction that explores the themes of male friendships.
By all means put female heads on your space marines, nothing is stopping you.
Insectum7 wrote: To the first: The comparison I would draw is that it would be unthinkable to segregate sports by race, but segregating the sexes in sport still seems like an appropriate measure to take in most cases.
To the second: I think when we're talking about fictional universes and fantasies, it's ok to draw lines here and there based on your target audiences or the point you're trying to make. Wakanda or Wonder Woman's Island of the Amazons come to mind. As does My Little Pony, for that matter.
The point of Wakanda not helping outsiders is made out to be a bad thing though. The whole plot of BP1 was that Wakanda had shut itself off from the world instead of using its position to be a world leader in combating poverty and starvation.
And the major theme behind the Amazons across the history of Wonder Woman is that in cutting themselves off from the world of man, they have become fearful and insular rather than championing equality and fairness.
All of that is true.
To which I'll say I like my interpretation of the all male Marines as being a symbol of militant hyper-patriarchy which resulted in the most catastrophic cataclysm the Imperium ever witnessed, the Horus Heresy. The hyper-male power fantasy is great and all, but if that goes unchecked, viola! endless war and strife! Yaay!
They’re Astartes. Mutilated, psychoindoctrinated super soldiers entirely removed from humanity, doomed form a young age to a violent death, either by the selection and conversion process, or ultimately in battle.
Astartes. Are. No. Longer. Human. They do not experience the human condition. They do not experience humanity.
And if you don’t believe women can be in a Brotherhood? Go look up the 1976 Eurovision Winners, Brotherhood of Man.
Sledgehammer wrote: There are more similarities than differences, but those differences can be profound. You can deny it all you want, but there are differences and there is nothing wrong with having a faction that explores the themes of male friendships.
Yet you cannot actually name these differences.
By all means put female heads on your space marines, nothing is stopping you.
And if there were female marines, nothing would force you to put them in your army.
Sledgehammer wrote: Space marines are a brotherhood and thus to add female space marines would completely destroy the relationship and culture that only a group of men can share together. The same can be said for the Sororitas.
And what sort of "relationship and culture" is that which ONLY men can have, and no-one else can? And what examples of that can be seen in the relationships and culture of Space Marines in 40k, which, as you say, could ONLY be expressed if those people identified as male?
Empirically, please.
The speech before Againcourt in Henry the Vth is a great example.
Spoiler:
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin, Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words—
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester—
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
I don't see how that expresses feelings that can ONLY be held by someone who identifies as male.
Also of relevance might be this quote, also from Shakespeare (a playwright, not a military leader): "Full of sound and fury; Signifying nothing." (Macbeth, 5:5:27-28)
Have you ever been in a fraternal society? Have you ever been in a group of men? The dynamic is different and to claim otherwise is to deny the truth.
I'd say most of the possibly different dynamics you hint at would disappear if that group of "men" was completely asexual, brainwashed, religiously fanatic and raised in a society were apparently gender roles don’t really are a question. We're not talking about a group of male german drunkards on their way to Mallorca here.
Also, any study about that stuff can only tell us something about the current 20th/21st century state of affairs. Gender differences mostly are a result of culture, and we're talking about a world that's so far away from our culture that... well, the people that build the pyramids are far closer to us than anything 40000 years (or 28000 years) in the future.
And yet space marines are not written as entirely unrelatable. Their brotherhood is what grounds them and allows the audience to empathize and relate with them. Female space marines change the dynamic, the theming, and the lore, when there are already other female factions and representation. I dont see the need. Different people are drawn to factions in different ways, and some like the brotherhood shared by the marines.
Insectum7 wrote: To the first: The comparison I would draw is that it would be unthinkable to segregate sports by race, but segregating the sexes in sport still seems like an appropriate measure to take in most cases.
To the second: I think when we're talking about fictional universes and fantasies, it's ok to draw lines here and there based on your target audiences or the point you're trying to make. Wakanda or Wonder Woman's Island of the Amazons come to mind. As does My Little Pony, for that matter.
The point of Wakanda not helping outsiders is made out to be a bad thing though. The whole plot of BP1 was that Wakanda had shut itself off from the world instead of using its position to be a world leader in combating poverty and starvation.
And the major theme behind the Amazons across the history of Wonder Woman is that in cutting themselves off from the world of man, they have become fearful and insular rather than championing equality and fairness.
All of that is true.
To which I'll say I like my interpretation of the all male Marines as being a symbol of militant hyper-patriarchy which resulted in the most catastrophic cataclysm the Imperium ever witnessed, the Horus Heresy. The hyper-male power fantasy is great and all, but if that goes unchecked, viola! endless war and strife! Yaay!
Would you still be able to enjoy your dudes being all of that if somewhere in another building someone else was enjoying mixed gender space marines? Or do your dudes only work as your dudes when other people are forbidden from making their dudes the dudes and dudettes they want?
I get why they work for you, but I wonder if you can’t have them your way while also allowing them to be open to other ways of being? Or is having them just so worth the cost of alienating many potential customers and players and keeping an ugly smudge on GW’s public perception and the reputation of the hobby as a whole? What form of compromise are you open to, if any?
Sledgehammer wrote: There are more similarities than differences, but those differences can be profound. You can deny it all you want, but there are differences and there is nothing wrong with having a faction that explores the themes of male friendships.
Yet you cannot actually name these differences.
By all means put female heads on your space marines, nothing is stopping you.
And if there were female marines, nothing would force you to put them in your army.
But more importantly it does change how EVERYONE relates to the army and identifies with them. That is ultimately why I play my army and am drawn to them.
Crimson wrote: Right. If people feel deeply about this no-girls-allowed brotherhood, their army could still be like that even if some other people were allowed to play mixed-gender chapters.
It seems obvious, but the same can be said in the reverse? Nobody is stopping you from making and playing with your female Marines. This is just circular.
How does it change? How does representation change the appeal to the majority?
You may recognise this question from earlier. Where you didn’t offer an actual answer, just unsubstantiated guff about how men and women can’t bond like men can.
Crimson wrote: Right. If people feel deeply about this no-girls-allowed brotherhood, their army could still be like that even if some other people were allowed to play mixed-gender chapters.
It seems obvious, but the same can be said in the reverse? Nobody is stopping you from making and playing with your female Marines. This is just circular.
This is not true, and I believe you know it isn’t. There are lots of toxic gatekeepers in the hobby, and many online groups—the primary social outlet for lots of hobbyists—outright delete or ban posts showing female space marines. Until GW officially states FSM are a thing, anyone from the mere lore stickler to the wehrebooist chud is out to ruin every FSM player’s day.
Crimson wrote: Right. If people feel deeply about this no-girls-allowed brotherhood, their army could still be like that even if some other people were allowed to play mixed-gender chapters.
It seems obvious, but the same can be said in the reverse? Nobody is stopping you from making and playing with your female Marines. This is just circular.
Sure. Technically true. But I would like GW to stop giving the cover of "but my lore" for people who get hostile whenever people post pictures of female marines or even mention them.
Sledgehammer wrote:You can deny it all you want, but there are differences and there is nothing wrong with having a faction that explores the themes of male friendships.
In what way do Space Marines "explore" those themes? Can you define those themes, in such a way that is not, and could not, be shared with the presence of women or non-binary people in them?
And, like I've repeated - can you define "Brotherhood" and "Sisterhood" in mutually exclusive ways, without referring to the genders of the people who perform those relationships? Because your refusal to do so indicates that you can't.
By all means put female heads on your space marines, nothing is stopping you.
Already ahead of you there, my Chapter includes Astartes of a plurality of genders, all bound by the same close relationship, the same one that binds all Chapters.
Sledgehammer wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Also, any study about that stuff can only tell us something about the current 20th/21st century state of affairs. Gender differences mostly are a result of culture, and we're talking about a world that's so far away from our culture that... well, the people that build the pyramids are far closer to us than anything 40000 years (or 28000 years) in the future.
And yet space marines are not written as entirely unrelatable. Their brotherhood is what grounds them and allows the audience to empathize and relate with them. Female space marines change the dynamic, the theming, and the lore, when there are already other female factions and representation. I dont see the need. Different people are drawn to factions in different ways, and some like the brotherhood shared by the marines.
So, men should be able to relate to the inhuman, hypno-indoctrinated super soldier, but not women? Why?
Should women be put off from playing/enjoying Space Marines, according to you?
(And that's not getting into if we even *should* be empathising/relating with Space Marines!)
Sledgehammer wrote: There are more similarities than differences, but those differences can be profound. You can deny it all you want, but there are differences and there is nothing wrong with having a faction that explores the themes of male friendships.
Yet you cannot actually name these differences.
By all means put female heads on your space marines, nothing is stopping you.
And if there were female marines, nothing would force you to put them in your army.
But more importantly it does change how EVERYONE relates to the army and identifies with them. That is ultimately why I play my army and am drawn to them.
So, you would only play Space Marines if, not just you, but *everyone else* wasn't supposed to have women's heads on them?
Crimson wrote: Right. If people feel deeply about this no-girls-allowed brotherhood, their army could still be like that even if some other people were allowed to play mixed-gender chapters.
It seems obvious, but the same can be said in the reverse? Nobody is stopping you from making and playing with your female Marines. This is just circular.
Well, except for the cries of "BUT THAT'S NOT CANON".
And you can put as much or as little heed into that as you like, but let's not argue like that isn't used to browbeat or harass people. Plus, I doubt you'd see anyone saying "nuh uh, you've GOT to include some women in your Space Marines, that's the rules!"
One side is saying "hey, let's open up the options here for what people want": the other is saying "no, you're not supposed to do things that way, there's only one way to do this".
How does it change? How does representation change the appeal to the majority?
You may recognise this question from earlier. Where you didn’t offer an actual answer, just unsubstantiated guff about how men and women can’t bond like men can.
Our life experiences and perceptions are obviously different. However a change like that will inherently change how people interact and perceive their army whether they want female space marines or not.
Yup, I wouldn't play Sororitas if they started including mr's of battle. Their theme is what makes them enjoyable.
How does it change? How does representation change the appeal to the majority?
You may recognise this question from earlier. Where you didn’t offer an actual answer, just unsubstantiated guff about how men and women can’t bond like men can.
Maybe substantiating it would be awkward. It might involve ruining a biscuit or something.
How does it change? How does representation change the appeal to the majority?
You may recognise this question from earlier. Where you didn’t offer an actual answer, just unsubstantiated guff about how men and women can’t bond like men can.
Our life experiences and perceptions are obviously different. However a change like that will inherently change how people interact and perceive their army whether they want female space marines or not.
No. That’s restating the allegation. It is not explaining nor demonstrating such an impact.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You may recognise this question from earlier. Where you didn’t offer an actual answer, just unsubstantiated guff about how men and women can’t bond like men can.
Our life experiences and perceptions are obviously different.
Gee! Almost like your argument that "men and women are totally different, there's no way you can have the same friendships and relationships between them" wasn't really all that factual, and was just your own experience of that.
How does it change? How does representation change the appeal to the majority?
You may recognise this question from earlier. Where you didn’t offer an actual answer, just unsubstantiated guff about how men and women can’t bond like men can.
Our life experiences and perceptions are obviously different. However a change like that will inherently change how people interact and perceive their army whether they want female space marines or not.
No. That’s restating the allegation. It is not explaining nor demonstrating such an impact.
There are female factions and intersex factions. Why don't you play them instead?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You may recognise this question from earlier. Where you didn’t offer an actual answer, just unsubstantiated guff about how men and women can’t bond like men can.
Our life experiences and perceptions are obviously different.
Gee! Almost like your argument that "men and women are totally different, there's no way you can have the same friendships and relationships between them" wasn't really all that factual, and was just your own experience of that.
You obviously didn't understand. Men and women can be friends, but those friendships are different and its well documented.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You may recognise this question from earlier. Where you didn’t offer an actual answer, just unsubstantiated guff about how men and women can’t bond like men can.
Our life experiences and perceptions are obviously different.
Gee! Almost like your argument that "men and women are totally different, there's no way you can have the same friendships and relationships between them" wasn't really all that factual, and was just your own experience of that.
You obviously didn't understand. Men and women can be friends, but those friendships are different and its well documented.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You may recognise this question from earlier. Where you didn’t offer an actual answer, just unsubstantiated guff about how men and women can’t bond like men can.
Our life experiences and perceptions are obviously different.
Gee! Almost like your argument that "men and women are totally different, there's no way you can have the same friendships and relationships between them" wasn't really all that factual, and was just your own experience of that.
You obviously didn't understand. Men and women can be friends, but those friendships are different and its well documented.
Sledgehammer wrote: There are female factions and intersex factions. Why don't you play them instead?
And that’s dodging the question entirely. Stick to the point in hand.
The point in hand is still “how does representation impact the appeal to the majority”
Because space marine players have kind of already signed on to space marines...
40k has representation and the women in the Sororitas and the guard are just as badass. You don't need to change an entire faction and how all of the currently invested players interact with them in that pursuit because it already exists in the setting.
Insectum7 wrote: To the first: The comparison I would draw is that it would be unthinkable to segregate sports by race, but segregating the sexes in sport still seems like an appropriate measure to take in most cases.
To the second: I think when we're talking about fictional universes and fantasies, it's ok to draw lines here and there based on your target audiences or the point you're trying to make. Wakanda or Wonder Woman's Island of the Amazons come to mind. As does My Little Pony, for that matter.
The point of Wakanda not helping outsiders is made out to be a bad thing though. The whole plot of BP1 was that Wakanda had shut itself off from the world instead of using its position to be a world leader in combating poverty and starvation.
And the major theme behind the Amazons across the history of Wonder Woman is that in cutting themselves off from the world of man, they have become fearful and insular rather than championing equality and fairness.
All of that is true.
To which I'll say I like my interpretation of the all male Marines as being a symbol of militant hyper-patriarchy which resulted in the most catastrophic cataclysm the Imperium ever witnessed, the Horus Heresy. The hyper-male power fantasy is great and all, but if that goes unchecked, viola! endless war and strife! Yaay!
Would you still be able to enjoy your dudes being all of that if somewhere in another building someone else was enjoying mixed gender space marines? Or do your dudes only work as your dudes when other people are forbidden from making their dudes the dudes and dudettes they want?
I get why they work for you, but I wonder if you can’t have them your way while also allowing them to be open to other ways of being? Or is having them just so worth the cost of alienating many potential customers and players and keeping an ugly smudge on GW’s public perception and the reputation of the hobby as a whole? What form of compromise are you open to, if any?
I'm not sure how much of it is about my personal enjoyment of my army. My faction already died, being sent to Legends in the wake of the atrocious Primaris takeover. But on a conceptual level, I just think it's ok for some products to be aimed at boys while other products are aimed at girls. Nature or nurture, these are different viewpoints that exist and it should be possible for any form of expression to cater to either or both.
I should also mention that many years ago (roundabouts the introduction of Primaris) I was more on the pro-FSM side of things. But having watched the dialogue around this type of issue in 40k, other franchises, and within the broader culture, I switched sides and have become pleased that Space Marines have been a holdout, simply because of some of the numerous double standards that seemed to show up. Interestingly, it almost seems like having the all male faction is the more punk/transgressive thing these days. I grew up in the 90's. I appreciate a little "edge". Back in the day it was the "satanic panic". Now I guess it's "40k is going to make you a mysogynist."
I accept that it will likely change at some point. Entertainingly it will probably be because GW, like the Imperium, is callous in is chase for its tithe.
Side note, I also think that many of these conversations are held within a western context, and that it helps to acknowledge 40k is a global franchise that caters (or attempts to cater) to people who will resonate with concepts or themes quite differently.
Crimson wrote: Right. If people feel deeply about this no-girls-allowed brotherhood, their army could still be like that even if some other people were allowed to play mixed-gender chapters.
It seems obvious, but the same can be said in the reverse? Nobody is stopping you from making and playing with your female Marines. This is just circular.
This is not true, and I believe you know it isn’t. There are lots of toxic gatekeepers in the hobby, and many online groups—the primary social outlet for lots of hobbyists—outright delete or ban posts showing female space marines. Until GW officially states FSM are a thing, anyone from the mere lore stickler to the wehrebooist chud is out to ruin every FSM player’s day.
Then don't join those groups?
Fyi, despite being a "lore stickler" I'm not going to complain about your FSM models.
Sledgehammer wrote: Because space marine players have kind of already signed on to space marines...
40k has representation and the women in the Sororitas and the guard are just as badass. You don't need to change an entire faction and how all of the currently invested players interact with them in that pursuit because it already exists in the setting.
I'm a Space Marine player, and I think Marines being all men is silly.
Your preference (Marines being all men) affects all Space Marine players, because male models are the only option available.
Mixed gender marines allow those who want them to use them, and those who want single gender armies can still do so simply by not using the models they don't want to use.
There is absolutely zero reason that the introduction of female space marines needs to affect 'all of the currently invested players' any more than they want it to.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You may recognise this question from earlier. Where you didn’t offer an actual answer, just unsubstantiated guff about how men and women can’t bond like men can.
Our life experiences and perceptions are obviously different.
Gee! Almost like your argument that "men and women are totally different, there's no way you can have the same friendships and relationships between them" wasn't really all that factual, and was just your own experience of that.
Well said Smudge. This particular line of thinking really gets my goat. Essentialist gender stereotypes of how people should think and who they should be friends are toxic and need to go.
As a (cis, het) male whose closest friends are mostly women (including my closest friend), the external perception of ‘you must be sleeping with each other’ is incredibly irritating, but otherwise friendships are the same.
For marines the ‘sleeping with each other’ angle is clearly not a thing so sex/gender are pretty irrelevant to their interpersonal relationships
Sledgehammer wrote: Because space marine players have kind of already signed on to space marines...
40k has representation and the women in the Sororitas and the guard are just as badass. You don't need to change an entire faction and how all of the currently invested players interact with them in that pursuit because it already exists in the setting.
I'm a Space Marine player, and I think Marines being all men is silly.
Your preference (Marines being all men) affects all Space Marine players, because male models are the only option available.
Mixed gender marines allow those who want them to use them, and those who want single gender armies can still do so simply by not using the models they don't want to use.
There is absolutely zero reason that the introduction of female space marines needs to affect 'all of the currently invested players' any more than they want it to.
Ok, then just put female or sister of battle heads on your army, no one is stopping you =). You know very well that you want it in the lore and for it to be canon and that by doing so you are changing how people view and interface with them. You just dont care about the other opinion and how it affects their ability to interface with their army.
Look at primaris, we're still having debates almost 10 years later and its now dang near mandatory to run them.
Remind me which real-world group Primaris Marines are, if you could. It’d be unfortunate for them to be represented into the exclusion of the real-world group Firstborn Marines are.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You may recognise this question from earlier. Where you didn’t offer an actual answer, just unsubstantiated guff about how men and women can’t bond like men can.
Our life experiences and perceptions are obviously different.
Gee! Almost like your argument that "men and women are totally different, there's no way you can have the same friendships and relationships between them" wasn't really all that factual, and was just your own experience of that.
You obviously didn't understand. Men and women can be friends, but those friendships are different and its well documented.
Do you have anything original to add, or are you just going to regurgitate half-read articles (which aren't all even academic, like this one!), which don't even support your point!
I mean, hell, this article (despite having absolutely no sources or scholarly backing) even says "Although these differences do not apply to all male-male and female-female friendships, this provides a general idea of how male-male friendships differ from female-female friendships." You're making all these claims about how different and utterly alien men and women's friendships are, but there's absolutely no mutually exclusive way to seperate them, nor have you acknowledged the cultural and performative aspects of these relationships!
And you're STILL not using any of your own words or descriptions, and STILL avoiding answering the questions of:
- What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships? - Where do queer people fit in with these definitions? - How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium? - If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women? - What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men? - Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The point in hand is still “how does representation impact the appeal to the majority”
Because space marine players have kind of already signed on to space marines.
I signed on to Space Marines for reasons other than "bc men" - and I actively want them to be more than only men. My enjoyment of Space Marines isn't dependent on them being men. If yours is, then that's your problem, and whatever anyone else does with their toy soldier men has nothing to do with how you enjoy yours.
40k has representation and the women in the Sororitas and the guard are just as badass.
The men in the Custodes and Guardsmen are just as badass too. If you want a male army, go play one of them, and give them all male heads.
They're the same thing, right?
You don't need to change an entire faction and how all of the currently invested players interact with them in that pursuit because it already exists in the setting.
I'm a currently invested player, and I want this faction to change.
Sledgehammer wrote: Because space marine players have kind of already signed on to space marines...
And?
I “signed on” with Space Marines in 2nd Ed, when I collected and painted a company of Dark Angels.
By your rationale, because at that point there were fewer units available, everything that came after should’ve reduced the appeal, yeah?
So, no Vindicators (not in 40K anyways), Razorbacks limited to Las/Twin Plas, Standard Landraider only (even then you’d have to buy second hand, as it was OOP for most of, if not all of, 2nd Ed). No Sternguard, not Vanguard. No Centurions. Boxnaughts only. Neither of the AA Rhino variants, standard Landspeeder with no weapon options, no Grav Guns, no command squads and so on and so forth.
Are you starting to feel a bit silly yet? Because you’re sounding increasingly silly, and still haven’t offered a good explanation for your claim.
JNAProductions wrote: Remind me which real-world group Primaris Marines are, if you could. It’d be unfortunate for them to be represented into the exclusion of the real-world group Firstborn Marines are.
We need men in the Sororitas, the Calladius assassin temple and the sisters of silence. It’d be unfortunate for them to be represented into the exclusion of the real-world group.
The pleas for female space marines are almost always associated with an underlying and unstated opinion that the Sororitas, female guardsmen and any other female faction or character is somehow lesser or not as cool.
Sledgehammer wrote: You just dont care about the other opinion and how it affects their ability to interface with their army.
Because it doesn't. If you want your marines to be all manly men, they can still all be manly men if women exist. Nobody is going to come to your house and take away your manly marines.
Look at primaris, we're still having debates almost 10 years later and its now dang near mandatory to run them.
Primaris were always clearly intended to replace the original marines. A large part of the issue with them is precisely that players are increasingly forced to use them unless they stick with their old armies and rules.
That's a completely different issue to female marines, as they wouldn't be replacing the male marines. Adding extra options does not stop you from using the options that are already there.
JNAProductions wrote: Remind me which real-world group Primaris Marines are, if you could. It’d be unfortunate for them to be represented into the exclusion of the real-world group Firstborn Marines are.
We need men in the Sororitas, the Calladius assassin temple and the sisters of silence. It’d be unfortunate for them to be represented into the exclusion of the real-world group.
The pleas for female space marines are almost always associated with an underlying and unstated opinion that the Sororitas, female guardsmen and any other female faction or character is somehow lesser or not as cool.
Callidus have men. They're more women than men, but both are recruited to be assassins.
Sororitas have men in their army. Again, you can run a 500 point list without needing to take a single women in your force, and that number used to be larger.
Sisters of Silence are part of the Talons of the Emperor-and they're the significantly smaller part. They have one unit box and one special character.
Marines are the main faction of 40k. They're the most popular, most pushed, most diverse (except in gender) faction. Is that deserved? Not in my opinion, but it doesn't change the facts.
I'd also like these questions to be answered too.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships?
- Where do queer people fit in with these definitions?
- How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium?
- If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women?
- What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men?
- Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
JNAProductions wrote: Remind me which real-world group Primaris Marines are, if you could. It’d be unfortunate for them to be represented into the exclusion of the real-world group Firstborn Marines are.
We need men in the Sororitas, the Calladius assassin temple and the sisters of silence. It’d be unfortunate for them to be represented into the exclusion of the real-world group.
The pleas for female space marines are almost always associated with an underlying and unstated opinion that the Sororitas, female guardsmen and any other female faction or character is somehow lesser or not as cool.
There are men in the Calidus temple, one of the earliest depictions of the Calidus temple had the boss of the main character (the Calidus assassin Me’lindi) who was pretty high up in the temple be make.
And while there aren’t male Sororitas themselves, there are a ton of men in the Adeptus Sororitas army.
And neither of those are anywhere near as all dominating to the franchise as Space Marines.
Sledgehammer wrote: You just dont care about the other opinion and how it affects their ability to interface with their army.
Because it doesn't. If you want your marines to be all manly men, they can still all be manly men if women exist. Nobody is going to come to your house and take away your manly marines.
Look at primaris, we're still having debates almost 10 years later and its now dang near mandatory to run them.
Primaris were always clearly intended to replace the original marines. A large part of the issue with them is precisely that players are increasingly forced to use them unless they stick with their old armies and rules.
That's a completely different issue to female marines, as they wouldn't be replacing the male marines. Adding extra options does not stop you from using the options that are already there.
And no one is stopping you from making female space marines.
You are taking away the appeal of the lore, theming, and how one views their army in that context, and I think you know that. I don't really play the guard because of units. I play them because of their place in the galaxy and how they navigate that space.
One thought I have reading this is that a lot of it really comes down to space marines (40K as well) and a lot of media aimed at young men is presented as None political.
When it’s all political and rather than talk about it, or show it GW and other companies have spent a while to smooth it all over.
There is storytelling and narrative that can come from space marines as they are now. But that would involve actually committing to there status more, and roughing up there hero status a bunch.
I even think legitimatising chaos would probably go a long way, as they are often just derp and evil. So it’s hard to ever bounce the imperiam imperfections off anything.
This is also why gatekeeping always leads to Stagnation.
JNAProductions wrote: Remind me which real-world group Primaris Marines are, if you could. It’d be unfortunate for them to be represented into the exclusion of the real-world group Firstborn Marines are.
We need men in the Sororitas
There already are. I believe JNA mentioned earlier in this thread that one could run a 500point Sororitas list without fielding a single woman.
the Calladius assassin temple
Agreed. All Assassin temples should be all genders. However, I believe that the Callidus Temple *is*, and we just keep getting femme-presenting models for them.
and the sisters of silence.
Sure, agreed.
It’d be unfortunate for them to be represented into the exclusion of the real-world group.
Unfortunately, the thing you're missing is that these are all either: - Already mixed gender - Minor minor minor subfactions of larger groups, or incapable of being fielded as an army in their own right.
Not exactly equivalent to Space Marines, who are the face of 40k, and even have their own spin-off game, focused on the actions of Space Marine organisations (Horus Heresy). Try again.
The pleas for female space marines are almost always associated with an underlying and unstated opinion that the Sororitas, female guardsmen and any other female faction or character is somehow lesser or not as cool.
Oh, they're very cool alright. I collect all of them. But lesser? In terms of sales, public perception, marketing, units available, customisation, playstyles, accessibility to new players, resources, and being the literal face of the brand? Yes, they absolutely are.
Now, before you start claiming it: no, the Sisters aren't the same thing as Space Marines; no, those factions are just as cool and badass, but that's not what the problem is; no, those factions existing doesn't make up for the fact that Space Marines are the most hyper-marketed faction in all of GW.
Oh, and don't forget to answer those other questions you were asked!
Sledgehammer wrote: We need men in the Sororitas, the Calladius assassin temple and the sisters of silence. It’d be unfortunate for them to be represented into the exclusion of the real-world group.
The difference between all of these (ignoring for a moment that you were also corrected on Callidus being all female) and Space Marines as the poster faction of the game were explained earlier in the thread.
It is perfectly acceptable for there to be all male or all female factions, where it makes sense within the setting.
It is less acceptable for the poster faction of the game to be an all male faction for no actual logical reason. It's exclusionary for no real benefit, it doesn't fit with the culture that faction is intended to represent, and it doesn't make sense within the bounds of the made-up science behind it.
The pleas for female space marines are almost always associated with an underlying and unstated opinion that the Sororitas, female guardsmen and any other female faction or character is somehow lesser or not as cool.
No, just that they're not space marines.
If I want a peanut butter sandwich, Reese's Pieces are not an acceptable substitute. Not because they are lesser, or not as cool... I'll quite likely have some at a different time. But just because they're not what I want when I feel like a sandwich.
Marines are the main faction of 40k. They're the most popular, most pushed, most diverse (except in gender) faction. Is that deserved? Not in my opinion, but it doesn't change the facts.
Imperial Guard are likely the most diverse faction in 40k, certainly more so than Marines. They're just criminally underrepresented in models and depiction.
JNAProductions wrote: Remind me which real-world group Primaris Marines are, if you could. It’d be unfortunate for them to be represented into the exclusion of the real-world group Firstborn Marines are.
We need men in the Sororitas
There already are. I believe JNA mentioned earlier in this thread that one could run a 500point Sororitas list without fielding a single woman.
the Calladius assassin temple
Agreed. All Assassin temples should be all genders. However, I believe that the Callidus Temple *is*, and we just keep getting femme-presenting models for them.
and the sisters of silence.
Sure, agreed.
It’d be unfortunate for them to be represented into the exclusion of the real-world group.
Unfortunately, the thing you're missing is that these are all either:
- Already mixed gender
- Minor minor minor subfactions of larger groups, or incapable of being fielded as an army in their own right.
Not exactly equivalent to Space Marines, who are the face of 40k, and even have their own spin-off game, focused on the actions of Space Marine organisations (Horus Heresy). Try again.
The pleas for female space marines are almost always associated with an underlying and unstated opinion that the Sororitas, female guardsmen and any other female faction or character is somehow lesser or not as cool.
Oh, they're very cool alright. I collect all of them. But lesser? In terms of sales, public perception, marketing, units available, customisation, playstyles, accessibility to new players, resources, and being the literal face of the brand? Yes, they absolutely are.
Now, before you start claiming it: no, the Sisters aren't the same thing as Space Marines; no, those factions are just as cool and badass, but that's not what the problem is; no, those factions existing doesn't make up for the fact that Space Marines are the most hyper-marketed faction in all of GW.
Oh, and don't forget to answer those other questions you were asked!
Oh you think members of the Ecclisarchy are in the Adepta Sororitas? I'm not talking about the codex.
Marines are the main faction of 40k. They're the most popular, most pushed, most diverse (except in gender) faction. Is that deserved? Not in my opinion, but it doesn't change the facts.
Imperial Guard are likely the most diverse faction in 40k, certainly more so than Marines. They're just criminally underrepresented in models and depiction.
Within the narrative universe of 40k, you're absolutely right.
Within the material world of 40k as a game, unfortunately not, as you mention.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sledgehammer wrote: Oh you think members of the Ecclisarchy are in the Adepta Sororitas? I'm not talking about the codex.
So why are there men in my Adepta Sororitas codex? I thought they were supposed to be all women???
Sledgehammer wrote: And no one is stopping you from making female space marines.
Nobody is stopping me from scratch building a thunderhawk, either. I'd still prefer one in plastic.
You are taking away the appeal of the lore, theming, and how one views their army in that context, and I think you know that.
I don't know that, because the appeal of space marines is that they are genetically modified super soldiers in cool armour who serve as a blank template for whatever theme you want to apply to them, not that they're all men.
Again, if you want yours to be all men, do that. Nobody is stopping you. But your preference for men is a poor reason for other people to not have access to the models they want in their own army.
In case you forgot the questions, Sledgehammer, here you go.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships?
- Where do queer people fit in with these definitions?
- How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium?
- If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women?
- What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men?
- Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Marines are the main faction of 40k. They're the most popular, most pushed, most diverse (except in gender) faction. Is that deserved? Not in my opinion, but it doesn't change the facts.
Imperial Guard are likely the most diverse faction in 40k, certainly more so than Marines. They're just criminally underrepresented in models and depiction.
Within the narrative universe of 40k, you're absolutely right.
Within the material world of 40k as a game, unfortunately not, as you mention.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sledgehammer wrote: Oh you think members of the Ecclisarchy are in the Adepta Sororitas? I'm not talking about the codex.
So why are there men in my Adepta Sororitas codex? I thought they were supposed to be all women???
Also, answer the questions.
Why are there aeronautica imperialis units in my imperial guard codex!!! I'm talking about themes and factions not codexes.....
Marines are the main faction of 40k. They're the most popular, most pushed, most diverse (except in gender) faction. Is that deserved? Not in my opinion, but it doesn't change the facts.
Imperial Guard are likely the most diverse faction in 40k, certainly more so than Marines. They're just criminally underrepresented in models and depiction.
Within the narrative universe of 40k, you're absolutely right.
Within the material world of 40k as a game, unfortunately not, as you mention.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sledgehammer wrote: Oh you think members of the Ecclisarchy are in the Adepta Sororitas? I'm not talking about the codex.
So why are there men in my Adepta Sororitas codex? I thought they were supposed to be all women???
Also, answer the questions.
Why are there aeronautica imperialis units in my imperial guard codex!!! I'm talking about themes and factions not codexes.....
Cool. So if you're talking about themes and factions...
Sgt_Smudge wrote: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships? - Where do queer people fit in with these definitions?
- How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium?
- If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women?
- What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men?
- Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
There's two questions that hang pretty heavily on the theme you apparently think is so central to Marines.
Marines are the main faction of 40k. They're the most popular, most pushed, most diverse (except in gender) faction. Is that deserved? Not in my opinion, but it doesn't change the facts.
Imperial Guard are likely the most diverse faction in 40k, certainly more so than Marines. They're just criminally underrepresented in models and depiction.
Within the narrative universe of 40k, you're absolutely right.
Within the material world of 40k as a game, unfortunately not, as you mention.
Neglect in other places is a huge issue, it’s actually depressing at times.
Wow, looks like I missed one hell of a gakstorm while I was at work.
Now that I'm caught up, this particular bit of... conversation? ...jumped out at me.
Sledgehammer wrote: Have you ever been in a fraternal society? Have you ever been in a group of men? The dynamic is different and to claim otherwise is to deny the truth.
I have! I was a Boy Scout in my teen years! ::looks at her sig:: Yeah, I know; I'm trans, get over it.
Point: I was a Boy Scout. Totally a fraternal order (of a sort). It was definitely a boys-only club at the time (the 90's) and the girls had their own - the Girl Scouts. The perception at the time was that the two groups tended to learn very different skillsets: the Boy Scouts learned knots, camping, and general survival skills, whereas the Girl Scouts learned things like sewing and cooking and general 'housewife' skills. The reality was probably somewhat different, so if anyone was a Girl Scout and would like to correct me, please do.
But you know what neither group was doing? Marching to war.
I would posit that while men and women might make friends in very different ways (and, hoo-boy, the crap that Boy Scouts get up to while left unattended tends to embarrass me in hindsight), the bonds between soldiers are forged in a third - and VERY different - fashion. I would posit that the bonds forged between Astartes has nothing to do with their sex or gender, but rather the circumstances of their shared existence (namely, a lifetime of never-ending war).
Space Marines aren't standing around in their off hours telling cringey off-color jokes or high-fiving each other for getting laid by the hottest Sororita - warfare is the only thing in their heads. The only thing they actually give a crap about has exactly dick to do with their dicks.*
At the end of the day, the only arguments against the inclusion of Female Space Marines has to do with the sexism of players, no matter the claims they try to wrap themselves in. And if you try to claim that the addition of women in the Adeptus Astartes is somehow taking something away from you instead of simply offering more options to others, that says far more about you than anything else that's been posted in this thread.
*I apologize for the crudity of this statement, but I think I a little extra *oomph* was needed for the analogy.
Now that I'm caught up, this particular bit of... conversation? ...jumped out at me.
Sledgehammer wrote: Have you ever been in a fraternal society? Have you ever been in a group of men? The dynamic is different and to claim otherwise is to deny the truth.
I have! I was a Boy Scout in my teen years! ::looks at her sig:: Yeah, I know; I'm trans, get over it.
Point: I was a Boy Scout. Totally a fraternal order (of a sort). It was definitely a boys-only club at the time (the 90's) and the girls had their own - the Girl Scouts. The perception at the time was that the two groups tended to learn very different skillsets: the Boy Scouts learned knots, camping, and general survival skills, whereas the Girl Scouts learned things like sewing and cooking and general 'housewife' skills. The reality was probably somewhat different, so if anyone was a Girl Scout and would like to correct me, please do.
But you know what neither group was doing? Marching to war.
I would posit that while men and women might make friends in very different ways (and, hoo-boy, the crap that Boy Scouts get up to while left unattended tends to embarrass me in hindsight), the bonds between soldiers are forged in a third - and VERY different - fashion. I would posit that the bonds forged between Astartes has nothing to do with their sex or gender, but rather the circumstances of their shared existence (namely, a lifetime of never-ending war).
Space Marines aren't standing around in their off hours telling cringey off-color jokes or high-fiving each other for getting laid by the hottest Sororita - warfare is the only thing in their heads. The only thing they actually give a crap about has exactly dick to do with their dicks.*
At the end of the day, the only arguments against the inclusion of Female Space Marines has to do with the sexism of players, so matter the claims they try to wrap themselves in. And if you try to claim that the addition of women in the Adeptus Astartes is somehow taking something away from you instead of simply offering more options to others, that says far more about you than anything else that's been posted in this thread.
*I apologize for the crudity of this statement, but I think I a little extra *oomph* was needed for the analogy.
So it's wrong to want a faction that appeals to the ideals of a fraternal order / society.
Is there a reason you're outright ignoring Smudge's questions?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships?
- Where do queer people fit in with these definitions?
- How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium?
- If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women?
- What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men?
- Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Sledgehammer wrote: Oh you think members of the Ecclisarchy are in the Adepta Sororitas? I'm not talking about the codex.
So why are there men in my Adepta Sororitas codex? I thought they were supposed to be all women???
Also, answer the questions.
Why are there aeronautica imperialis units in my imperial guard codex!!! I'm talking about themes and factions not codexes.....
Really? Care to talk about these themes?
- What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships? - Where do queer people fit in with these definitions? - How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium? - If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women? - What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men? - Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Sledgehammer wrote: So it's wrong to want a faction that appeals to the ideals of a fraternal order / society.
What part of that "fraternal order/society" is represented in Space Marines which can ONLY be done if they're all male?
You've been given a list of questions to answer which might get to the root of whatever it is you're trying to avoid saying.
Also, excellent insight, Manfred von Drakken. Much appreciated. Likewise, JNA, I appreciate you reposting my questions, so that they might grant a bit of insight into these beliefs.
Sledgehammer wrote: So it's wrong to want a faction that appeals to the ideals of a fraternal order / society.
If you want an army that is, say, a group of Space Vikings with furry sidekicks, does the existence of Ultramarines affect how you feel about Space Wolves?
If you want an army of bike-riding desert steppe nomads, does the existence of Space Wolves affect how you feel about White Scars?
If you want an army of fast moving assault specialists, does the existence of Devastators impact how you relate to your army?
If you believe that only in death does duty end, does the fact that a Land Raider is sitting on a store shelf somewhere make you like Dreadnoughts any less?
If you want an army of all-man-all-the-time space marines, the existence of female marines, once again, doesn't actually need to have the slightest impact on your army.
As I typically post with the enthusiasm (and some would posit the mentality)of a Ritalin-deprived 9 year old (ie. Big Smashy Robots = Good Time for All)...
But you might have noticed, for the most part, that I've pretty much steered clear of this thread.
And this is why...
I see threads like these on boards across the 'net divide individual posters into their own camps and then launch arguments at one another without the forethought of the fact that some posts may honestly be hurtful to others.
We all must be aware that when someone says that your outlook is invalid, it can be hurtful.
So... before you post something, that could instill some negative emotions in others, take moment to step back, take a deep breath and decide if your post is based on an emotional knee-jerk reaction to someone's comment, or an honest appraisal of the situation, that pushes the debate forward.
That's my two cents. I just want us to remember why we are here, to share a community with other people who share common interests with us, around the globe.
JNAProductions wrote: Is there a reason you're outright ignoring Smudge's questions?
I would imagine for the same reason a politician won't answer the questions asked of them: the answers would make them look bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lathe Biosas wrote: We all must be aware that when someone says that your outlook is invalid, it can be hurtful.
Frankly, not all outlooks are valid, and some so-called opinions are objectively wrong. To use the most outlandish example I can quickly think of: flat-Earthers.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: At the end of the day, the only arguments against the inclusion of Female Space Marines has to do with the sexism of players, no matter the claims they try to wrap themselves in.
I have to say, this is one of the types of arguments that eventually drove me into the anti-FSM camp.
JNAProductions wrote: Is there a reason you're outright ignoring Smudge's questions?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships? - Where do queer people fit in with these definitions? - How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium? - If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women? - What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men? - Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Brotherhood and sisterhood are close cultural and biologically determined relationships that can only develop between members of a group with shared experiences and traits. Space marines fulfill this function by interacting with each other and thus forming unique relationships that only they can have with one another via those struggles, traits, and experiences. Men can empathize with Sororitas, and women can empathize with space marines. By definition you cannot have an intersex brotherhood or sisterhood. Instead that is comradeship which already exists in the other imperial factions.
The reality of space marines being male and performing actions with their other males is exactly how bonds of brotherhood can be forged between men. Brother hood can only be obtained via men because they share the same state, the same general traits, and the same experiences along with the same proclivities. Their sex/gender is a part of that because our sex determines not only our biology, but how others perceive us within a group. We know that relationships between men and women tend to be different in their function in the real world as evidenced in numerous studies. There is nothing wrong with emulating both and humanizing the members of those groups who engage in that. However to integrate these group, when integration already exists in spades elsewhere simply homogenizes the factions and degrades their unique identity.
To remove brotherhood from a faction of brothers is to destroy them.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships?
- Where do queer people fit in with these definitions? - How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium? - If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women? - What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men? - Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Sledgehammer wrote: Their sex/gender is a part of that because our sex determines not only our biology, but how others perceive us within a group.
In a group that has removed biological reproduction as a function, that exists in a society that sees no distinction between men and women, how do you think sex would influence the different perception of men and women?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships?
- Where do queer people fit in with these definitions? - How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium? - If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women? - What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men? - Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
You missed some of it.
I kind of imagine at this point that whatever Sledge posts wouldn't be received with the slightest bit of good faith.
JNAProductions wrote: Is there a reason you're outright ignoring Smudge's questions?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships? - Where do queer people fit in with these definitions? - How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium? - If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women? - What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men? - Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Brotherhood and sisterhood are close cultural and biologically determined relationships that can only develop between members of a group with shared experiences and traits.
And what are the traits of these relationships? What are the signs that denote "brotherhood" as opposed to just two male friends? What denotes "sisterhood", as opposed to two women friends? What are these traits which mean that they can only be experienced by men/women accordingly, and what is it about these traits that means that I, a non-binary individual, cannot experience them?
Space marines fulfill this function by interacting with each other and thus forming unique relationships that only they can have with one another via those struggles, traits, and experiences.
And what are these interactions and experiences that they can only experience because they were born with a penis, back before they were pumped full of hormones and hypnoindoctrinated to the point where they can barely remember their pre-Astartes life? Which struggles do they suffer that, if a woman had also been there and suffered with them, they would still have a different experience with? If a woman had been through the same experiences, as an Astartes, why wouldn't she also be part of the same group?
Men can empathize with Sororitas, and women can empathize with space marines.
But you just claimed that it was VITALLY important that Space Marines should be all male so that you could empathise and relate to them? But if men can relate and empathise with Sisters, then why not with women Space Marines?
The reality of space marines being male and performing actions with their other males is exactly how bonds of brotherhood can be forged between men. Brother hood can only be obtained via men because they share the same state, the same general traits, and the same experiences along with the same proclivities.
Except that your studies do not support this statement at all.
Experiences are, well, experienced - not biological. If a woman went through the same experiences, then she would have the same relationship. Same state?? So what, ALL men share the same state and traits, no differences? How dreadfully dull - and incorrect.
Again, you're not answering the question still - what is "brotherhood"? What defines it, what actions and behaviours define it, which don't rely on the circular logic of "brotherhood is when men".
We know that relationships between men and women tend to be different in their function in the real world as evidenced in numerous studies.
Studies which nearly all agree that these conditions are *cultural*, not innately biological.
To remove brotherhood from a faction of brothers is to destroy them.
How can it destroy them if you can't even identify WHAT Brotherhood is!
You're avoiding the other questions, and you still can't answer this one!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships? - Where do queer people fit in with these definitions? - How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium? - If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women? - What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men? - Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
You missed some of it.
I kind of imagine at this point that whatever Sledge posts wouldn't be received with the slightest bit of good faith.
If Sledge could answer them, that would be a start.
Unfortunately, they didn't even manage to do that.
But, since you're sniping at me with that comment, what merit do you find in their response, which can be summed up as "brotherhood is when men do Things together" (note that these Things are never specified, that the identity of "men" assumes that all men undergo the same experiences in life, and doesn't factor into account the realities of trans men or trans people with male upbringings, nor is Brotherhood differentiated from other forms of male friendship. Are all male friendships Brotherhoods?)
Please - what sort of credit *should* I give that flaming pile of nothing?
JNAProductions wrote: Is there a reason you're outright ignoring Smudge's questions?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships?
- Where do queer people fit in with these definitions?
- How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium?
- If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women?
- What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men?
- Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Brotherhood and sisterhood are close cultural and biologically determined relationships that can only develop between members of a group with shared experiences and traits.
Space marines fulfill this function by interacting with each other and thus forming unique relationships that only they can have with one another via those struggles, traits, and experiences.
Men can empathize with Sororitas, and women can empathize with space marines. By definition you cannot have an intersex brotherhood or sisterhood. Instead that is comradeship which already exists in the other imperial factions.
This is entirely circular reasoning ‘brotherhood is only between men because I define it as only being between men’.
The reality of space marines being male and performing actions with their other males is exactly how bonds of brotherhood can be forged between men. Brother hood can only be obtained via men because they share the same state, the same general traits, and the same experiences along with the same proclivities. Their sex/gender is a part of that because our sex determines not only our biology, but how others perceive us within a group.
This bit is poppycock from a biological perspective and is entirely due to sociological factors (I.e. gender stereotypes) that don’t really apply in the same way to the Imperium, and not at all to marines. A marine relates no differently to a human woman as to a human man. Don’t see why they’d relate differently to Astartes women as Astartes men.
We know that relationships between men and women tend to be different in their function in the real world as evidenced in numerous studies.
1) difference in relationships is primarily sociological not biological
2) psychological differences between men and women mostly a matter of degree not an absolute binary. Two sliding scales or Venn diagrams with an absolute ton of overlap.
There is nothing wrong with emulating both and humanizing the members of those groups who engage in that. However to integrate these group, when integration already exists in spades elsewhere simply homogenizes the factions and degrades their unique identity.
men and women are not separate species! And tbh the all female orders in 40k say very little if anything about any stereotypical ‘female’ relationships and marines say very little about male relationships. Toxic masculinity and testosterone poisoning yes, but even that varies massively between chapters.
To remove brotherhood from a faction of brothers is to destroy them.
FSM doesn’t remove ‘brotherhood’ just makes it apply in the gender-neutral sense. And frankly to what would be women who are very stereotypically male in a lot of ways.
Sledgehammer wrote: Their sex/gender is a part of that because our sex determines not only our biology, but how others perceive us within a group.
In a group that has removed biological reproduction as a function, that exists in a society that sees no distinction between men and women, how do you think sex would influence the different perception of men and women?
No difference and no distinction? Its a massive subplot in the integration of female soldiers in the vervunhive influx in Gaunts Ghosts. I'm trying to think about a single other regiment that has women in the Gaunts Ghosts series and am drawing a blank. Gaunt is called out for this at one point even and is called unorthodox (which is why he is successful).
Biological and social influences are absolutely seen in the space marine recruits even if implantation starts early, its enough to create pretty massive differences. Heck it hinted that Lukas the Trickster has children due to his late introduction to the space marines.
And people still are treated as male and female whether they can reproduce or not. We don't even know how that affects space marines, but they are most certainly not like eunuchs' or castratos. If anything they have even more heightened male traits.
Sledgehammer wrote: Their sex/gender is a part of that because our sex determines not only our biology, but how others perceive us within a group.
In a group that has removed biological reproduction as a function, that exists in a society that sees no distinction between men and women, how do you think sex would influence the different perception of men and women?
No difference and no distinction? Its a massive subplot in the integration of female soldiers in the vervunhive influx in Gaunts Ghosts. I'm trying to think about a single other regiment that has women in the Gaunts Ghosts series and am drawing a blank. Gaunt is called out for this at one point even and is called unorthodox.
Gaunt's Ghosts, rather famously, aren't Space Marines.
Biological and social influences are absolutely seen in the space marine recruits even if implantation starts early, its enough to create pretty massive differences.
Source please. Social influences, absolutely - in the same way a Fenrisian has a different culture to a Baalite. Biological? Show me.
Sledgehammer wrote: No difference and no distinction? Its a massive subplot in the integration of female soldiers in the vervunhive influx in Gaunts Ghosts. I'm trying to think about a single other regiment that has women in the Gaunts Ghosts series and am drawing a blank. Gaunt is called out for this at one point even and is called unorthodox (which is why he is successful).
It's been twenty years since I read the Gaunt books. I do know that, more recently, we've had women in charge of the Cadian Guard, and serving as Inquisitors, Mechanicum lords, Commissars, and spread throughout the Guard.
Heck it hinted that Lukas the Trickster has children due to his late introduction to the space marines.
I'm not sure that pointing out that the character based on Loki is slightly unorthodox really makes much of a wider point, honestly.
And people still are treated as male and female whether they can reproduce or not.
In the real world, in some cases, yes. Because people seeking a mate often treat potential mates differently to platonic friends, or because society tells us to treat them differently. This, once again, doesn't apply to Space Marines. Once you remove the biological imperative from the equation, there is even less reason to treat women any differently to men than there was to begin with.
Insectum7 wrote: I think this is a case of displaying how little empathy some people have who would try to force empathy on others.
If you think I'm going to be tolerant of intolerance, I've got a news flash for you: ain't happening.
Intolerance isn't what's happening here, at least on Sledges's part as far as I can see. What I'm seeing is an intolerance of a product/fantasy aimed at a particular group. This would be like me being "intolerant" and declaring "sexism" at the depiction of love interests in romance novels. I could be mad at it, but it's not FOR me.
Sledgehammer wrote: Their sex/gender is a part of that because our sex determines not only our biology, but how others perceive us within a group.
In a group that has removed biological reproduction as a function, that exists in a society that sees no distinction between men and women, how do you think sex would influence the different perception of men and women?
No difference and no distinction? Its a massive subplot in the integration of female soldiers in the vervunhive influx in Gaunts Ghosts. I'm trying to think about a single other regiment that has women in the Gaunts Ghosts series and am drawing a blank. Gaunt is called out for this at one point even and is called unorthodox.
Gaunt's Ghosts, rather famously, aren't Space Marines.
Biological and social influences are absolutely seen in the space marine recruits even if implantation starts early, its enough to create pretty massive differences.
Source please. Social influences, absolutely - in the same way a Fenrisian has a different culture to a Baalite. Biological? Show me.
Insectum7 wrote: I think this is a case of displaying how little empathy some people have who would try to force empathy on others.
If you think I'm going to be tolerant of intolerance, I've got a news flash for you: ain't happening.
Right beside you.
No study exists, and you know one doesn't because a study would require us to raise children and remove them from any social environment. The social sciences are the least scientific field of research precisely due to the sheer volume of confounding variables and our inability to control for them. We have results and conjecture. Regardless of the reason why we have gender differences, they do exist. See the gender paradox and the increasingly divergent political opinions among the sexs. No one has or can definitively prove the reasons for the differences in the sexes, only how they manifest.
There is nothing wrong with having a faction that exemplifies these traits/differences and appeals to them so long as they are not denigrative to others and offer similar options. The sisters happen to be that alternative and should get more options and time in the spot light. Possibly different factions even. However the space marines do appeal to something that men can only share with each other despite my inability to verbalize it.
Insectum7 wrote: Intolerance isn't what's happening here, at least on Sledges's part as far as I can see. What I'm seeing is an intolerance of a product/fantasy aimed at a particular group. This would be like me being "intolerant" and declaring "sexism" at the depiction of love interests in romance novels. I could be mad at it, but it's not FOR me.
Sound legit. From Dictionary.com:
intolerance /ĭn-tŏl′ər-əns/
noun
When people don't understand that someone writing a romance novel with women in it makes me no longer able to enjoy all these romance novels exclusively about men.
I’m a man.
And I fully disagree with your “Only men can understand men” or however you want to phrase it.
Men and women aren’t nearly as different as any given people are. A sports-loving person, man, woman, or other, would have less in common with me than a more nerdy sort, again regardless of gender.
Insectum7 wrote: Intolerance isn't what's happening here, at least on Sledges's part as far as I can see. What I'm seeing is an intolerance of a product/fantasy aimed at a particular group. This would be like me being "intolerant" and declaring "sexism" at the depiction of love interests in romance novels. I could be mad at it, but it's not FOR me.
Sound legit. From Dictionary.com:
intolerance /ĭn-tŏl′ər-əns/
noun
When people don't understand that someone writing a romance novel with women in it makes me no longer able to enjoy all these romance novels exclusively about men.
Not even sure the point you're trying to make here.
Either way I'm signing off for a while, family calls.
Sledgehammer wrote: Biological and social influences are absolutely seen in the space marine recruits even if implantation starts early, its enough to create pretty massive differences.
Source please. Social influences, absolutely - in the same way a Fenrisian has a different culture to a Baalite. Biological? Show me.
No study exists, and you know one doesn't because a study would require us to raise children and remove them from any social environment.
Very good! So all this "we definitely know that men and women are different" stuff could be (read: is) based not on some kind of biological predetermination and innate behaviours, but rather from learned social behaviours, created from the cultures we are born and raised into, the behaviour we are encouraged (and discouraged!) from performing, and the media and role models we observe!
So, if all of these elements are cultural contexts, why on earth would they apply to posthuman hypnoconditioned super soldiers 38000 years from now?
Furthermore, if these behaviours *are* imitated and performed from cultural practices, wouldn't that stand to reason that there's nothing "innate" about them, and that Brotherhood/Sisterhood as fixed performances and tangible immutable concepts... don't exist?
Regardless of the reason why we have gender differences, they do exist.
From cultural contexts, yes - genders are performed according to flexible, culturally dependent, temporal conditions. But as an innate, fixed "truth"? No, they do not.
There is nothing wrong with having a faction that exemplifies these traits/differences and appeals to them
Agreed - IF THAT WASN'T THE MAIN FACTION IN THE GAME, and if it *actually did something meaningful with those traits!* Also, you haven't even pointed out these traits! Like I've been asking of you, repeatedly!
But with Space Marines, their male-ness is hardly a factor of their identity! If, as other users suggested, Space Marines were changed (heaven forfend!) to be more obviously a parody of infantile displays of shallow masculinity, or if their male-ness was used in some way other than just *happening* to be all men, then I'd totally be behind them being this hyper-masculine faction. But, as is, Orks show more "brotherhood" and "masculinity" and "male behaviours" than Space Marines do - and they're fungi!
I mean, let's suggest the same sort of thing you suggested earlier, how fans of women Space Marines should just play Sisters. You want a faction which embodies "brotherhood", "masculinity" and "male behaviours". What if, instead of Space Marines, it was Orks which embodied all those traits (traits which you have not elaborated upon). If what you wanted was an ultra-masculine faction, why not play Orks instead, and leave the Space Marines as gender neutral?
That way, the flagship is now gender neutral (you can still play all-male Space Marines in your own army, if you wanted!), you get an ultra-male army, and it would *actually add more to the Ork identity* ("bigger is better", the emphasis on louder/faster/shootier, and mob mentalities could all be used as satire/commentary on certain "male"* behaviours)
*again, I want to emphasis that "male behaviours" is ridiculously reductive and horribly inaccurate - not that you seem to question reducing things down to gender stereotypes.
However the space marines do appeal to something that men can only share with each other despite my inability to verbalize it.
Look, if you can't explain it, and you can't justify it, and you can't answer any of the other questions, why should I put stock in this argument?
Why should I give it any more faith than the sheer lack of respect you're treating my arguments with?
People have, fairly, pointed out that respect and empathy needs to go both ways - so where's your respect for me and mine?
I asked the Omnissiah's most trusted servant, Chat GPT for an answer and this was its response:
Integrating women into the Space Marines in the Warhammer 40,000 universe is a topic that has generated considerable discussion among fans. While the lore traditionally depicts Space Marines as exclusively male due to their genetic modification and the nature of their creation, there are several creative approaches that could be explored to include female characters in this iconic faction:
1. **Sisters of Battle Integration**: The Adepta Sororitas, or Sisters of Battle, are already a prominent all-female military order in the Imperium. A narrative could be developed where the Sisters of Battle are granted the opportunity to undergo a modified version of the Space Marine creation process, allowing them to become Space Marines while retaining their unique identity and skills.
2. **New Chapter Creation**: A new Space Marine Chapter could be introduced that specifically recruits and trains women. This Chapter could have its own unique lore, traditions, and methods of recruitment, allowing for a fresh perspective within the Space Marine narrative.
3. **Genetic Modification Variants**: The lore could explore the idea of different genetic modification processes that allow for female Space Marines. This could involve advanced technology or ancient knowledge that enables the creation of female Astartes, perhaps as a result of a long-lost technology from the Dark Age of Technology.
4. **Heroic Characters**: Instead of changing the fundamental nature of the Space Marines, the narrative could focus on creating strong female characters within the existing lore. These characters could be leaders, strategists, or allies who work alongside Space Marines, showcasing their bravery and skills in battle.
5. **Alternate Universes or Timelines**: The Warhammer 40,000 universe is vast and filled with alternate realities. A storyline could explore a different timeline where women are integrated into the Space Marine ranks, allowing for a fresh take on the lore without altering the established canon.
6. **Exploration of the Primaris**: With the introduction of Primaris Space Marines, there could be room for experimentation in their creation process. The narrative could explore how the Primaris technology might allow for the inclusion of female Astartes, perhaps as a result of new discoveries or changes in the Imperium's approach to warfare.
These approaches could provide a way to integrate women into the Space Marines while respecting the established lore and themes of the Warhammer 40,000 universe. Ultimately, any integration would need to be handled thoughtfully to maintain the integrity of the existing narrative.
As someone now in their mid 40’s (and only a little bit in denial), let’s look back at my childhood, and my bonding experiences.
Mum and Dad were both involved in Scouting (in his late days, Dad was even awarded The Silver Wolf, Scouting’s highest accolade, awarded solely at the Chief Scout’s Discretion) and so of course was I. Beavers, Cubs and Scouts.
And I’ve extremely fond memories of not only Pack Holidays with my Cub Pack, but with the one Mum ran. And those (female leaders not withstanding, big up Mum, Christine and Alison) were of course all male.
Y’know why?
Because at that time? Girls weren’t allowed in Beavers, Cubs or Scouts. Oh they could join Rainbows, Brownies and Guides. But it was gender segregated in my day.
Until, y’know, it wasn’t.
So those all lads bonding sessions (including Father and Son camps at Bonaly) weren’t because Girls Weren’t Interested In Those Things, but because the powers that be had decided No Girls Allowed.
So, not couldn’t - weren’t allowed.
Do you see the difference?
In the present day, most if not all UK Beaver colonies, Cub packs and Scout Troops are mixed gender. And they still do the sort of fun and adventurous things we got up to.
Not as much or as frequently as I did of course. But then, being the son of Scout Leaders has its perks. Not least visiting Bonaly (Edinburgh’s largest Scout Camp) most months, often multiple times, and taking on that assault course built by Royal Marines with alarming frequency. I might have been utterly uninterested in sports, but it was a rare day anyone could beat me on that course.
What this discussion and most others of its kind fail to appreciate is that the 40k universe as established was very much a parody of extreme right wing authoritarian and theocratic views. Male dominance and female subordination are part and parcel of most such ideologies.
As 40k has become more commercial, we've seen a shift to the good guy-ification of the Imperium and Space Marines in particular, to where they are depicted in more flattering and more heroic terms. Who, after all, expects to see Henry Cavil gunning down Eldar children?
I am very much opposed to the continuing trend of positive Imperial progress. For many of us who started with the setting long ago, the tension inherent in the central conceit of the Imperium being an absolutely terrible and irredeemable state, and yet possibly the only way humanity could survive is far more interesting than trying to adapt Warhammer to the changing views of modern society.
In my opinion, there are no female Space Marines not because of some technical or biological limitation, but rather because the Imperium is built and maintained on ideologies of hatred and inequality, and this is one of them. The further 40k (and other British IP from that era, such as Judge Dredd, Watchmen, V for Vendetta, etc, which after all were influencing each other) drifts from its political satire and punk roots, the shallower and more generic it's become. And now we're seeing the result, with opinions like "there should be female Space Marines to improve representation and align with modern sensibilities" instead of "there should be representation of how terrible the Imperium is for women or people with disabilities or non-believers or whatever else."
Editing this post 19 million times to try and get the tone right, to show I find distasteful what I see as a commercialized dilution of the Imperium's cruelty. I understand why people who enjoy Warhammer may wish to see broader representation, and certainly their opinion is as valid as mine. But I believe that trying to make the Imperium more palatable to people is missing the entire point of the Imperium.
But your interpretation there is simply incorrect.
The Imperium is all kinds of awful, and always will be (that’s now the satire, that for the few, not insignificant advancements made, Nothing Has Or Will Change). But? It’s not demonstrated inward sexism, racism or homophobia etc.
During the Great Crusade, gender was demonstrably no barrier to a career anywhere outside of the Sisters of Silence and Astartes. And the reasons behind those exceptions aren’t presented as the result of sexism.
LeperColony wrote: In my opinion, there are no female Space Marines not because of some technical or biological limitation, but rather because the Imperium is built and maintained on ideologies of hatred and inequality, and this is one of them.
By the statements of Rick Priestley - prior to the rogue trader book during citadels 'chronicle' range the hero models were being designed 20-25% female and that was still the thought going into the earliest RT development. Except that no-one was buying the female models and retailers weren't restocking them.
So any thoughts of female models in citadels newest and quite successful (still pre-RT) Imperial Marines line didn't get off the ground. It wasn't so much that they were removed as Priestleys' early game had been using non-citadel models that were all male anyway and the marines had developed a monk background for roleplaying purposes but it did mean no sisters of battle models and no new lore changes to accommodate female marines.
The RT book featured several female warriors presented as both savage killers and elite operatives, fascist soldiers and street punks. They were few and far between compared to the men but at the end of the day the book was designed to sell the models that they had.
Whether people agree with a change to the current lore or not there has certainly been a whole lot of headcannon and accusations thrown around in this thread and others about why. It's simply that in the run up to the original book release female models in general were a net loss to citadel miniatures. Had they not been we would have had female marines and the old monk angle would have been changed prior to release.
---------------------
As for the why and why not of a change today - the geneseed is effectively a magic potion that turns a tiny person into a giant superhuman with the reality of biology be damned, the only things at state are the established lore, the brand, and other peoples attachment and identification with it.
And while I can't speak personally to that last part I understand and can see how deeply invested people get into hobbies or groups as an extension of themselves. Anyone in this thread who identifies deeply with something should ask themselves how they would feel if that something was expanded to include an equal amount of something completely opposite to what they identify with - not good or bad, just a complete and permanent right turn into new territory.
Identity and safe spaces take many forms. You can accuse people of sexism for not wanting a change and you'd not always be wrong but you'd not always be right either and as a few posts have demonstrated people are more than happy to state 'factually' about others the first thing that pops into their mind.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: At the end of the day, the only arguments against the inclusion of Female Space Marines has to do with the sexism of players, no matter the claims they try to wrap themselves in.
...
If you think I'm going to be tolerant of intolerance, I've got a news flash for you: ain't happening.
My sister in Christ... I could stand here and announce that all the pro FSM discussion can be dismissed as being based on current political agenda and activism and it would be just as big of a strawman as your "summary of the contra FSM side" you try to proclaim every few posts. To use your own language: That you see sexism in literally every argument from the contra side throughout the whole thread tells more about yourself than the posters you engage with.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And what sort of integrity is that? GW haven't shown any "integrity" on stasis - they'll change the lore if it suits them.
As I mentioned several times, not every change is of the same impact. And I'm not okay with everything that GW changed in the lore so far. Just because GW is willing to change things up does not mean the change is free from scrutiny or that changes get a blank slate to do whatever.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't believe in "integrity for the sake of integrity". ¹I care about what will tell a better story. Would Space Marines being all-male make them more interesting, especially while they remain as the face of 40k? For me, no, I don't think so, and so it should change.
I'm not arguing for "change for the sake of change": I'm arguing for us to evaluate the benefits of something changing, versus it not changing. ²I don't believe in "it should stay the same because that's how it is right now", because that is the death of creativity, IMO.
Emphasise mine:
¹ I'm with you on this. How about we give other factions the spotlight they deserve instead of cementing 40k even more of a bolterporn fest? How about we release more female models and upgrade kits for the existing factions that are mixed gender, especially including Custodes? How about more novels and stories that highlight the rich diversity almost all factions in 40k sport to really show that 40k is for everyone?
The Imperium is all kinds of awful, and always will be (that’s now the satire, that for the few, not insignificant advancements made, Nothing Has Or Will Change). But? It’s not demonstrated inward sexism, racism or homophobia etc.
During the Great Crusade, gender was demonstrably no barrier to a career anywhere outside of the Sisters of Silence and Astartes. And the reasons behind those exceptions aren’t presented as the result of sexism.
The Great Crusade era is very different from the 41st-millenium Imperium, which the Emperor never set out to make, and to which we were introduced long before we had the mountains of lore we have now. As the setting solidified from the RT-era and became more internally coherent (meaning it involved fewer external references, fewer in-jokes, less prominent ties to "fantasy in space," and became increasingly self-referential), the Imperium that was presented was one of oppression, misery, ossification and blind ritual. The nine million books of the HH cash grab came much later, and isn't very relevant to the opinion I set out in my original post (and which I made clear was my opinion).
I really don't know how to address claims that the Imperium isn't motivated by racism, as that's been a clear central tenant of the humanocentric Imperium for literally decades of real life time.
Certainly it's true we don't see a ton of discussion regarding sexuality in 40k, though there are a few stray references. For instance, in the Second Edition Sisters codex, the Sisters were twisted as Brides of the Emperor and it is implied some of the services they rendered to the theocrat were sexual in nature. During the same era, it's mentioned that of the populace massacred by traitor legions, some victims were killed to provide "cruder, more direct pleasures" (or similar language, going from memory). In the corruption of some of the Primarchs, it was also mentioned (without specific detail) that they were plied by various decadent means.
It's definitely possible to subject the ways sexuality is discussed or omitted, especially within the context of all-male organizations, to various forms of literary criticism and form opinions regarding the Imperium's views of sexual behavior, but it would be all conjecture. We all understand for commercial reasons, it is best for GW if Space Marines are delivered by storks. As a result, much regarding gender roles and sexuality is going to be the result of interpretation. And as I mentioned, my interpretation is based on the fact that sources described the Imperium as having ossified into a horrible, oppressive and fanatical dead tree that nevertheless offered humanity its best chance at survival.
The RT book featured several female warriors presented as both savage killers and elite operatives, fascist soldiers and street punks. They were few and far between compared to the men but at the end of the day the book was designed to sell the models that they had.
Yeah, I've seen similar interviews. And the RT-era and the generally pre-Second Edition era had a lot in flux. There were joke in-references. Space Marines were playable in Talisman. You had Sisters hunting down rogue Marines, who were more like mercenaries than the space knights the Primaris are today, we saw marines doing things like policing duties, a half-Eldar marine, equipment options that included gear that is now Xenos (like Shuriken Catapults), etc.
Of course, the Imperium is no model of consistency as a result of its decades long development, differing commercial objectives and outlooks. But the idea that the Imperium is a wretched civilization in terminal decline was vividly established in the post RT-era. While no doubt RT established many concepts that have proven durable, it was really the later materials leading up to Second Ed, and especially Second Ed itself, that set the foundations for the 40k setting we have now.
And while I can't speak personally to that last part I understand and can see how deeply invested people get into hobbies or groups as an extension of themselves. Anyone in this thread who identifies deeply with something should ask themselves how they would feel if that something was expanded to include an equal amount of something completely opposite to what they identify with - not good or bad, just a complete and permanent right turn into new territory.
Here's my honest and genuine answer: I just wouldn't put any of the stuff I don't identify with in my lists. Simple.
Sisters of Battle suddenly have a change of heart and begin working with alien auxiliary units?
Fine.
I just won't put any in my army. And in my fluff, my headcanon, my preceptory would be one of the hold-outs against the new "Imperial Creed"
Pretty interesting story.
GW makes fem marines. Don't like'em. Not only don't buy'em, write a chapter history about why; treat the fem marines of other players like DA treat the Fallen. There is a narrative solution. There always is.
I really don't know how to address claims that the Imperium isn't motivated by racism, as that's been a clear central tenant of the humanocentric Imperium for literally decades of real life time.
When actual Xenoform extra terrestrial entities are known to exist, differences between the ethnocultures of humans will cease to be a problem. Humans will unite against anything they perceive as a common foe.
No human in 40k is going to hate a human from another planet more than they hate a Tyranid. 4ok doesn't have racism; it has species-ism. There is a difference.
Now folks can (and do) argue that aliens are analogies for race, and that may even be true- but while the reader always knew that the Albatross or the White Whale were symbols. the Albatross and the Whale, from inside their respective narratives, did not.
JNAProductions wrote: He literally failed to answer five of six questions, and his answer on the first one ignored the stipulations, making the answer pretty much useless.
Look at how Smudge posts. An answer to a Smudge question is broken out into 5 parts, each of which generating a new question. You can't blame anybody for not fighting that hydra.
Now that I'm caught up, this particular bit of... conversation? ...jumped out at me.
Sledgehammer wrote: Have you ever been in a fraternal society? Have you ever been in a group of men? The dynamic is different and to claim otherwise is to deny the truth.
I have! I was a Boy Scout in my teen years! ::looks at her sig:: Yeah, I know; I'm trans, get over it.
Point: I was a Boy Scout. Totally a fraternal order (of a sort). It was definitely a boys-only club at the time (the 90's) and the girls had their own - the Girl Scouts. The perception at the time was that the two groups tended to learn very different skillsets: the Boy Scouts learned knots, camping, and general survival skills, whereas the Girl Scouts learned things like sewing and cooking and general 'housewife' skills. The reality was probably somewhat different, so if anyone was a Girl Scout and would like to correct me, please do.
Also, here in the UK the Scouts are now mandatorily gender inclusive since 2007 (and was optional since 1991). Boys, girls, and NBs are welcome at all levels. It didn't alter the connection that scouts formed with each other at all.
In fact, girls now make up over a quarter of all UK Scouts, and often massively outnumber the number of boys in terms of new members, like in 2018 where 71% of new members were girls.
PenitentJake wrote: Here's my honest and genuine answer: I just wouldn't put any of the stuff I don't identify with in my lists. Simple.
And that is what works for you, but it sounds like any connection you have is with your collection rather than the faction and its lore.
Different strokes for different folks. It runs the gamut from people who have zero emotional investment to those for which it is a part of their self identity - at that end of the spectrum it's not so much a question of 'no girls' but rather a contest of 'I want to change this to better represent me' vs 'why are you changing this to less represent me' where to the incumbents it is not an expansion or an option but an attack on them.
Also, here in the UK the Scouts are now mandatorily gender inclusive since 2007 (and was optional since 1991). Boys, girls, and NBs are welcome at all levels. It didn't alter the connection that scouts formed with each other at all.
In fact, girls now make up over a quarter of all UK Scouts, and often massively outnumber the number of boys in terms of new members, like in 2018 where 71% of new members were girls.
A colleague of mine is a trans woman and an Explorer Scout leader, I have a huge amount of respect for her.
LeperColony wrote:What this discussion and most others of its kind fail to appreciate is that the 40k universe as established was very much a parody of extreme right wing authoritarian and theocratic views. Male dominance and female subordination are part and parcel of most such ideologies.
I *would* agree, except it's simply not accurate to the Imperium as depicted.
Yes, male dominance is a hallmark of fascist views, which the Imperium definitely is, but it's one of the few areas the Imperium doesn't touch. In nearly every aspect of its organisation, the Imperium is uncaring if you're male, female, or gender non-confirming. Guardsmen are sent to die, regardless of what's in their pants. Adepts of the Imperium's administrative and civilian branches toil away, no matter what their gender. The only truly gendered branches of the Imperium are:
- Sisters of Battle (because of a legal loophole, not because of anything innately due to them being women)
- Sisters of Silence (for reasons I genuinely cannot identify, I'd welcome an explanation on why they are the way they are)
- Space Marines (for the IN UNIVERSE reason of geneseed only working on males)
None of these reasons are "because the Imperium is sexist" - and if GW wanted to emulate the idea that "the Imperium is sexist", they're doing an awful job of presenting that. If GW wanted to present the Imperium as sexist, then they could just say "yeah, there's no women in the Imperial Guard, the only branches women can fight in are the Sororitas and Sisters of Silence". But, notably, they've not done that, ergo the Imperium is not institutionally sexist.
Again, I'd invite you look back on a comment I made earlier about what seems to be the three camps of "why Space Marines can't be women", where I explain how the argument that "Space Marines are all male to reflect how misogynistic the Imperium is" doesn't hold water when viewed as part of the wider Imperium.
Editing this post 19 million times to try and get the tone right, to show I find distasteful what I see as a commercialized dilution of the Imperium's cruelty. I understand why people who enjoy Warhammer may wish to see broader representation, and certainly their opinion is as valid as mine. But I believe that trying to make the Imperium more palatable to people is missing the entire point of the Imperium.
I went over this earlier as well. Having women in your army of fascist super soldiers doesn't change that the super soldiers are still fighting for a fascist regime, and that they're still the bad guys. I really don't see why having women would make them not the bad guys.
To put another way: I don't just support women's and trans rights, I also support women's and trans wrongs too.
a_typical_hero wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And what sort of integrity is that? GW haven't shown any "integrity" on stasis - they'll change the lore if it suits them.
As I mentioned several times, not every change is of the same impact. And I'm not okay with everything that GW changed in the lore so far. Just because GW is willing to change things up does not mean the change is free from scrutiny or that changes get a blank slate to do whatever.
I agree that change shouldn't be free from scrutiny! Like I said, I support change (and stasis!) when it is beneficial to the story/universe/product being created. In this situation, I believe that non-male Astartes *does* improve the product/story/universe, because there is no benefit to things remaining as they are (for the aforementioned reasons of it being incongruous to the wider Imperium, being based in outdated views which are presented uncritically, and actively going against the primary hobby niche of what Space Marines are, which is as a blank slate faction which caters to newcomers).
Because Space Marines, at present, could be improved to better fulfil what their creative niche is, I believe they should change.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't believe in "integrity for the sake of integrity". ¹I care about what will tell a better story. Would Space Marines being all-male make them more interesting, especially while they remain as the face of 40k? For me, no, I don't think so, and so it should change.
I'm not arguing for "change for the sake of change": I'm arguing for us to evaluate the benefits of something changing, versus it not changing. ²I don't believe in "it should stay the same because that's how it is right now", because that is the death of creativity, IMO.
Emphasise mine:
¹ I'm with you on this. How about we give other factions the spotlight they deserve instead of cementing 40k even more of a bolterporn fest? How about we release more female models and upgrade kits for the existing factions that are mixed gender, especially including Custodes? How about more novels and stories that highlight the rich diversity almost all factions in 40k sport to really show that 40k is for everyone?
In an ideal world, where 40k starts from scratch, and Space Marines aren't given anywhere near the same degree of media attention, where they aren't the default face of the game, where they have as much focus now as, say, the Votann have now - I would absolutely agree. It's why I've said that I don't have an issue with all-male factions (I think that Orks would be a genuinely fascinating exploration of masculine hegemony, and that if any faction should be the "male" faction, it's Orks!), but rather that the "all-male" faction currently is also the one that gets the most attention in all forms of media, and is widely considered the Starter Faction (and also has the widest range of play and aesthetic options presented).
However, I'm being realistic here - that's simply not going to happen any time soon.
² Never argued for that.
My apologies if I misunderstood your argument.
Gene St. Ealer wrote:
JNAProductions wrote: He literally failed to answer five of six questions, and his answer on the first one ignored the stipulations, making the answer pretty much useless.
Look at how Smudge posts. An answer to a Smudge question is broken out into 5 parts, each of which generating a new question. You can't blame anybody for not fighting that hydra.
If people can't answer those questions, that says more about them. They're really not hard to answer, if someone's at least being honest and direct with their answers and not trying to beat around a metaphorical bush. It's when people try to dance around answering it and avoid answering the core question which is when I double down to get them to refine their answer: which would be easily avoided if they actually answered the question.
On Sisters of Silence? We don’t know why they’re all female.
My speculation is they’re not naturally occuring blanks, instead being manufactured in some way, either on existing subjects, or something akin to the Votann Cloneskeins. Whether the all female is the result of a cultural limitation or technological limitation hasn’t been discussed in the background.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think that Orks would be a genuinely fascinating exploration of masculine hegemony, and that if any faction should be the "male" faction, it's Orks!
Kind of feels insincere when you pick the race of brain damaged, howling, plague on every world they encounter football 'ooligans as your fascinating exploration of men.
- Sisters of Silence (for reasons I genuinely cannot identify, I'd welcome an explanation on why they are the way they are)
It's a good question probably worth of its own topic in the lore section.
I think a big part of it is simply that they were originally a Heresy thing that mostly only existed in novel form. My gut says that the author was probably pulling from something like the Bene Gesserit or simply wanted to include the Sisters of Battle in a story that was set before they were founded.
In any case, they exist to put something in the Hersey era but weren't really pushed as a major part of the setting until 7th edition tried to make a billion new factions no matter how little support they had. I think modern day GW would probably make them more a Kill Team option and an Imperial Agent or just forget them altogether if they hadn't made the models and tried to shove them in Custodes. I don't think GW considers them a pillar of the setting or anything.
My speculation is they’re not naturally occuring blanks, instead being manufactured in some way, either on existing subjects, or something akin to the Votann Cloneskeins. Whether the all female is the result of a cultural limitation or technological limitation hasn’t been discussed in the background.
I was under the impression that it was a bureaucratic deal that sends all the blank women to the Sisters of Silence and all the blank men to the Culexus temple.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think that Orks would be a genuinely fascinating exploration of masculine hegemony, and that if any faction should be the "male" faction, it's Orks!
Kind of feels insincere when you pick the race of brain damaged, howling, plague on every world they encounter football 'ooligans as your fascinating exploration of men.
A masculine hegemony is not the same thing as men as a whole. You greatly expanded the scope there.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think that Orks would be a genuinely fascinating exploration of masculine hegemony, and that if any faction should be the "male" faction, it's Orks!
Kind of feels insincere when you pick the race of brain damaged, howling, plague on every world they encounter football 'ooligans as your fascinating exploration of men.
As opposed to the brainwashed, chanting, destroyer of every world they encounter, fascist child soldiers as an exploration of men?
I mean this with all sincerity, but Space Marines are just as flawed to compare real men by as any xenos species. If Orks are too brutal or savage to reflect men, then Space Marines should also be ruled out.
To clarify: men are great! Women are great! Non-binary people are great! But everyone in 40k is *bad*. If we're going to say that some factions should be used to satirise gender (if we're saying that), then all factions are going to be presenting the worst parts of people.
(And, as LunarSol points out, I do refer to "masculine hegemony" - not "men". Orks don't have to be men to explore the worst parts of hypermasculinity.)
LunarSol wrote: I think a big part of it is simply that they were originally a Heresy thing that mostly only existed in novel form. My gut says that the author was probably pulling from something like the Bene Gesserit or simply wanted to include the Sisters of Battle in a story that was set before they were founded.
IIRC they were first seen in artbook form as the female counterparts to the custodes.
No fluff, no statline, just an artistic counterpart to stand at the Emperors left hand while the custodes stood at his right - literally.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As opposed to the brainwashed, chanting, destroyer of every world they encounter, fascist child soldiers as an exploration of men?
It rather hinges on how you approach representation - I replied to your post as it positioned orks as an 'exploration of masculinity' rather than just a faction that presents as male.
Because representation comes from two angles. On the one hand if I cannot feel represented by someone of a different sex/race/creed/etc then I am the problem, on the other hand if I am under represented that becomes its own form of exclusion.
That marines are all male is not in of itself the problem, that they are 95% of the narrative has made them exclusionary by marginalizing everything else.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As opposed to the brainwashed, chanting, destroyer of every world they encounter, fascist child soldiers as an exploration of men?
It rather hinges on how you approach representation - I replied to your post as it positioned orks as an 'exploration of masculinity' rather than just a faction that presents as male.
Because representation comes from two angles. On the one hand if I cannot feel represented by someone of a different sex/race/creed/etc then I am the problem, on the other hand if I am under represented that becomes its own form of exclusion.
That marines are all male is not in of itself the problem, that they are 95% of the narrative has made them exclusionary by marginalizing everything else.
I think there's a few layers to it, but I do agree. If Space Marines weren't the beginner friendly faction they are, if they weren't, as you say, 95% of the narrative, and if GW found a way to reconcile the whole "well, the Imperium is actually generally gender-blind" thing with the "but these Space Marines HAVE to be male for cultural reasons!" elements, then I'd agree.
I think, if those three areas were to be reconciled/solved, I wouldn't mind Space Marines being all-male. A possible example of the kind of reduction I'd be talking about would be:
Imagine if the ONLY Space Marine Chapter that existed was the Black Templars. Not "all Space Marines are now Black Templars": that all other Space Marines were gone, and only the Black Templars remained. So, stories not featuring Black Templars, media not featuring Black Templars, etc. is now all gone and vanished. Black Templars become as much of a faction as Grey Knights or Deathwatch are, with as much media space. Black Templars have a set aesthetic/design/theme, and they generally officially stick to that (obviously, people can do what they like with their minis, but in terms of how they're presented, they're not presented as ultra-customisable). They're all all-male, because of the Chapter's founding rites, culture, and beliefs, which stem from Ye Olde Earth beliefs and patriarchies.
I'm 100% okay with that, because they don't have a massive market dominance, they aren't the face of 40k, and they have a much more restricted and refined scope in what their design is supposed to be emulating, which isn't as the Ultra Customisable Beginner Friendly Faction.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As opposed to the brainwashed, chanting, destroyer of every world they encounter, fascist child soldiers as an exploration of men?
It rather hinges on how you approach representation - I replied to your post as it positioned orks as an 'exploration of masculinity' rather than just a faction that presents as male.
Because representation comes from two angles. On the one hand if I cannot feel represented by someone of a different sex/race/creed/etc then I am the problem, on the other hand if I am under represented that becomes its own form of exclusion.
That marines are all male is not in of itself the problem, that they are 95% of the narrative has made them exclusionary by marginalizing everything else.
I think there's a few layers to it, but I do agree. If Space Marines weren't the beginner friendly faction they are, if they weren't, as you say, 95% of the narrative, and if GW found a way to reconcile the whole "well, the Imperium is actually generally gender-blind" thing with the "but these Space Marines HAVE to be male for cultural reasons!" elements, then I'd agree.
I think, if those three areas were to be reconciled/solved, I wouldn't mind Space Marines being all-male. A possible example of the kind of reduction I'd be talking about would be:
Imagine if the ONLY Space Marine Chapter that existed was the Black Templars. Not "all Space Marines are now Black Templars": that all other Space Marines were gone, and only the Black Templars remained. So, stories not featuring Black Templars, media not featuring Black Templars, etc. is now all gone and vanished. Black Templars become as much of a faction as Grey Knights or Deathwatch are, with as much media space. Black Templars have a set aesthetic/design/theme, and they generally officially stick to that (obviously, people can do what they like with their minis, but in terms of how they're presented, they're not presented as ultra-customisable). They're all all-male, because of the Chapter's founding rites, culture, and beliefs, which stem from Ye Olde Earth beliefs and patriarchies.
I'm 100% okay with that, because they don't have a massive market dominance, they aren't the face of 40k, and they have a much more restricted and refined scope in what their design is supposed to be emulating, which isn't as the Ultra Customisable Beginner Friendly Faction.
Nice alternate universe vision.
Meanwhile, here in our universe it'd play out like this: One of the 19(?) factions IS going to get picked to be the lead image for marketing, etc. It WILL be made to be customizable & Beginner Friendly.
I'll put my $ on the Black Templars.
Because, even with their tabards, nothing says 40k like a (heroic) Space Marine.
My speculation is they’re not naturally occuring blanks, instead being manufactured in some way, either on existing subjects, or something akin to the Votann Cloneskeins. Whether the all female is the result of a cultural limitation or technological limitation hasn’t been discussed in the background.
I always had the impression it was because Sisters of Battle didn’t exist during the Heresy and GW wanted some women present in the artwork and later miniatures, but not women who would shake things up too much or alter the existing Heresy story points. Women who are seen but not heard.
And they hadn’t yet realized they could just make Custodes multi-gender without Grognards burning down GW headquarters.
PenitentJake wrote: Here's my honest and genuine answer: I just wouldn't put any of the stuff I don't identify with in my lists. Simple.
And that is what works for you, but it sounds like any connection you have is with your collection rather than the faction and its lore.
Different strokes for different folks. It runs the gamut from people who have zero emotional investment to those for which it is a part of their self identity - at that end of the spectrum it's not so much a question of 'no girls' but rather a contest of 'I want to change this to better represent me' vs 'why are you changing this to less represent me' where to the incumbents it is not an expansion or an option but an attack on them.
I appreciate what you're trying to do here: empathizing with those on the "Male only is okay" side, and trying tobe diplomatic about it all. Frankly, I have similar inclinations- I've always preferred peace to discord.
But the issue here is this:
If FSM are added to lore, that allows people who like them to use them, AND it continues to allow people who don't like them to not use them. Nobody loses anything.
If FSM continue to be excluded from the lore, people who want them can't use them.
So one point of view excludes, where the other does not.
So very many political issues right now follow the same pattern. I don't want to go down the rabbit hole too deep, because politics in 40k forums is frowned upon, if not an outright violation of rules. But for example:
Access to medical treatments which terminate pregnancies will never force anyone to terminate who does not want to, but the flip side WILL prevent people who want care from receiving it.
Same with Gender Affirming care.
Teaching kids that gay and trans people exist will not force anyone to be gay or trans if they don't want to, but not teaching this may prevent folks who are gay or trans from learning how to care for themselves.
There are other examples, but that's enough of a detour.
So obviously, we aren't talking about that, but rather female representation in the game's poster faction. But many folks on the liberal side of this argument are aware that one point of view is inclusive where the other is exclusionary, and empathizing with those who hold the exclusionary point view is hard for us, because while it might not feel like it matters that much in a discussion about 40k, the real world arguments which follow the same ideology DO have very real and very severe consequences.
So while I applaud your effort to "see both sides" for the sake of maintaining the appearance of peace and civility, and I understand it for what it is, I know how bitter a pill to swallow it will be for folks who are affected be the ideology that underpins both the 40k argument and the larger "culture war" (a term I loathe, by the way).
I was under the impression that it was a bureaucratic deal that sends all the blank women to the Sisters of Silence and all the blank men to the Culexus temple.
Culexis aren't all men. See the novel 'Nemesis'...
(Don't actually read it, it's terrible... But there's a female Culexis on the cover.)
I feel like this is a nice example, though, of how people form assumptions based on the model range,
I was under the impression that it was a bureaucratic deal that sends all the blank women to the Sisters of Silence and all the blank men to the Culexus temple.
Culexis aren't all men. See the novel 'Nemesis'...
(Don't actually read it, it's terrible... But there's a female Culexis on the cover.)
Now THAT we can agree on. That novel really is terrible.
PenitentJake wrote: Here's my honest and genuine answer: I just wouldn't put any of the stuff I don't identify with in my lists. Simple.
And that is what works for you, but it sounds like any connection you have is with your collection rather than the faction and its lore.
Different strokes for different folks. It runs the gamut from people who have zero emotional investment to those for which it is a part of their self identity - at that end of the spectrum it's not so much a question of 'no girls' but rather a contest of 'I want to change this to better represent me' vs 'why are you changing this to less represent me' where to the incumbents it is not an expansion or an option but an attack on them.
I appreciate what you're trying to do here: empathizing with those on the "Male only is okay" side, and trying tobe diplomatic about it all. Frankly, I have similar inclinations- I've always preferred peace to discord.
But the issue here is this:
If FSM are added to lore, that allows people who like them to use them, AND it continues to allow people who don't like them to not use them. Nobody loses anything.
If FSM continue to be excluded from the lore, people who want them can't use them.
So one point of view excludes, where the other does not.
So very many political issues right now follow the same pattern. I don't want to go down the rabbit hole too deep, because politics in 40k forums is frowned upon, if not an outright violation of rules. But for example:
Access to medical treatments which terminate pregnancies will never force anyone to terminate who does not want to, but the flip side WILL prevent people who want care from receiving it.
Same with Gender Affirming care.
Teaching kids that gay and trans people exist will not force anyone to be gay or trans if they don't want to, but not teaching this may prevent folks who are gay or trans from learning how to care for themselves.
There are other examples, but that's enough of a detour.
So obviously, we aren't talking about that, but rather female representation in the game's poster faction. But many folks on the liberal side of this argument are aware that one point of view is inclusive where the other is exclusionary, and empathizing with those who hold the exclusionary point view is hard for us, because while it might not feel like it matters that much in a discussion about 40k, the real world arguments which follow the same ideology DO have very real and very severe consequences.
So while I applaud your effort to "see both sides" for the sake of maintaining the appearance of peace and civility, and I understand it for what it is, I know how bitter a pill to swallow it will be for folks who are affected be the ideology that underpins both the 40k argument and the larger "culture war" (a term I loathe, by the way).
To which I would say, 40k isn't health care. It's a fantasy. I think fantasy or works of fiction should be free to explore their themes as they see fit, and companies should be free to market their materials or choose their target demographics as they see fit.
Sorry to say but I doubt I'll return to the thread today, I've got to catch up on work I didn't get done yesterday for lack of focus and my inability to multitask.
I was under the impression that it was a bureaucratic deal that sends all the blank women to the Sisters of Silence and all the blank men to the Culexus temple.
Culexis aren't all men. See the novel 'Nemesis'...
(Don't actually read it, it's terrible... But there's a female Culexis on the cover.)
I feel like this is a nice example, though, of how people form assumptions based on the model range,
Well, that & how little is actually written about the Culexus. I don't think I've ever seen anything written gaming wise (you know, in a codex or rule book or such - where most 40k players will have seen Culexus info) that says anything about them being M/FM/etc. Amd they've never made a FM model of it.
So if you didn't know there's a FM Culexus on the cover of one (oop?) novel....
I posted one of mine earlier in the thread. But also, it's not mine to say either. As a work of fiction/art you can be free to derive your own theories and resonances. I invite you to explore it yourself.
Well, that & how little is actually written about the Culexus. I don't think I've ever seen anything written gaming wise (you know, in a codex or rule book or such - where most 40k players will have seen Culexus info) that says anything about them being M/FM/etc. Amd they've never made a FM model of it.
So if you didn't know there's a FM Culexus on the cover of one (oop?) novel....
That was kind of my point... we know that assassins can be men or women. People just assumed that the various temples were gender-locked because that's the way the models were released. It was never actually a thing in the background. The closest to any of the temples being gender-specific was the reference to Callidus skewing towards women because they react better to polymorphine. But even there, we've had references to male Callidus assassins as far back as the '90s.
Friendly piece of advice: not the best assumption to make on a world-wide message board.
I could stand here and announce that all the pro FSM discussion can be dismissed as being based on current political agenda and activism and it would be just as big of a strawman as your "summary of the contra FSM side" you try to proclaim every few posts. To use your own language: That you see sexism in literally every argument from the contra side throughout the whole thread tells more about yourself than the posters you engage with.
No one has been able to explain to me how letting other people enjoy a thing more - even if that enjoyment is in a way that is slightly different from how you enjoy it - in any way diminishes how you enjoy said thing.
How would letting people enjoy female Space Marines detract from your ability to enjoy male Space Marines?
No one has been able to explain to me how letting other people enjoy a thing more - even if that enjoyment is in a way that is slightly different from how you enjoy it - in any way diminishes how you enjoy said thing.
How would letting people enjoy female Space Marines detract from your ability to enjoy male Space Marines?
Flip it. I hereby demand that Wakanda be not all-black, and that Wonder Woman's Island of Amazons be changed to include men. Are you suggesting that making these changes wouldn't change how the concepts resonate with their audiences or alter the intended narratives?
No one has been able to explain to me how letting other people enjoy a thing more - even if that enjoyment is in a way that is slightly different from how you enjoy it - in any way diminishes how you enjoy said thing.
How would letting people enjoy female Space Marines detract from your ability to enjoy male Space Marines?
Flip it. I hereby demand that Wakanda be not all-black, and that Wonder Woman's Island of Amazons be changed to include men. Are you suggesting that making these changes wouldn't change how the concepts resonate with their audiences or alter the intended narratives?
In an ideal world?
It wouldn't matter much at all. Because being white or black wouldn't matter. Same for gender.
However, in the much more flawed real world, straight, cis, white men are significantly overrepresented in media and elsewhere.
No one has been able to explain to me how letting other people enjoy a thing more - even if that enjoyment is in a way that is slightly different from how you enjoy it - in any way diminishes how you enjoy said thing.
How would letting people enjoy female Space Marines detract from your ability to enjoy male Space Marines?
Flip it. I hereby demand that Wakanda be not all-black, and that Wonder Woman's Island of Amazons be changed to include men. Are you suggesting that making these changes wouldn't change how the concepts resonate with their audiences or alter the intended narratives?
In an ideal world?
It wouldn't matter much at all. Because being white or black wouldn't matter. Same for gender.
However, in the much more flawed real world, straight, cis, white men are significantly overrepresented in media and elsewhere.
A: Not in China, or India, etc. with regards to race.
B: Does that mean they (men of all races, because global product and all) cannot be allowed their spaces of fantasy?
No one has been able to explain to me how letting other people enjoy a thing more - even if that enjoyment is in a way that is slightly different from how you enjoy it - in any way diminishes how you enjoy said thing.
How would letting people enjoy female Space Marines detract from your ability to enjoy male Space Marines?
Flip it. I hereby demand that Wakanda be not all-black, and that Wonder Woman's Island of Amazons be changed to include men. Are you suggesting that making these changes wouldn't change how the concepts resonate with their audiences or alter the intended narratives?
In an ideal world?
It wouldn't matter much at all. Because being white or black wouldn't matter. Same for gender.
However, in the much more flawed real world, straight, cis, white men are significantly overrepresented in media and elsewhere.
A: Not in China, or India, etc. with regards to race.
B: Does that mean they (men of all races, because global product and all) cannot be allowed their spaces of fantasy?
A-Maybe not white folk in China. But cis and straight men?
B-You can field an all-male Marine force. Adding women to Marines won't change that.
And if your fantasy is built on excluding others, then I don't think it's a very healthy fantasy to have.
If you want to pretend to be a big, badass warrior, protecting the people he loves from vile threats (whether you see that in Space Marines or you're playing a D&D or a videogame or anything) that's fine. That's healthy.
If your fantasy is, instead, predicated on denying others joy... That doesn't seem like a very good stance to have.
JNAProductions wrote: If your fantasy is, instead, predicated on denying others joy... That doesn't seem like a very good stance to have.
THIS.
Keep in mind that Black Panther - and indeed many Marvel heroes - exist specifically as a counter to the over-saturation of a particular demographic. And while the Sisters of Battle may have started as an attempt to counter the hyper-masculinity represented by Marines, their fetishization actually serves more to hinder female representation.
For the umpteenth time: allowing women to be Marines doesn't force you, personally, into including them in your army. You lose nothing by others gaining an option.
^Busy now so can't respond. But y'all are clearly missing the point and its just going to get circular.
Here's what I'm reading. Women can have exclusionary fantasy. Black people can have exclusionary fantasy. But men can't have exclusionary fantasy because they are "priveledged" regardless of whether they're personal experience feels priveleged.
Here's what I'm reading. Women can have exclusionary fantasy. Black people can have exclusionary fantasy. But men can't have exclusionary fantasy because they are "priveledged" regardless of whether they're personal experience feels priveleged.
I feel like branding this as things that people 'can' and 'can't have is missing the point. Most western fantasy is already exclusionary fantasy for white men.
People who are under-represented in fantasy want to see more of themselves in fantasy. Because western fantasy has traditionally skewed towards white men, the way to tip the scales back towards the other direction is to create more focused fantasy that caters specifically to those under-represented groups. But that sort of thing is still very much a minority, and vastly overwhelmed by the volume of white male centric fantasy that still saturates the market, in part because parts of the market push back the moment anybody else gets any sort of representation.
When people feel more well represented in the mainstream, there won't be as much of a need for that sort of stuff you're branding as 'exclusionary'. But for that to happen, white men need to accept that there is room in fantasy for other people.
Are men excluded from superhero media?
Or white people?
Because, as best I can see, the majority of the big-name heroes are white men. Batman. Superman. Iron Man. Captain America. Flash. Mr. Fantastic. Hal Jordan (Green Lantern).
Whereas with 40k, the biggest, most supported faction is exclusionary to women.
My thesis in response is that women aren't catered to with those products simply because women trend towards different fantasy expressions, a la barbie, the rom com or I guess instagram influncers these days. And in a number of those spaces the depiction of a male perspective is also lacking because of the target audience.
Edit: Or like Twilight and 50 shades of Gray, lol.
None of the women I know asked for Barbie or Rom Coms. They have asked for Space Marines. If women trend towards wanting power fantasy Space Marines, shouldn’t they be included then?
I think the closest super hero analogy isn’t Wakanda or Themyscyra, but Pepper Pots. She was just the squishy love interest in the first film, but in later films she got to wear Iron Man armor, too. She wasn’t forced to remain a passive support character for the real heroes, at least where the wish fulfillment aspect is concerned.
The elephant in the room of course, as others have pointed out is that GW has never been all that shy of changing their lore if they think it will make them money.
How many big time sisters players do we have here? Anyone purchase a couple of the hereticus battleforce sets? What about the new box set?
What killed female space marines originally wasn't representation, it was a simple lack of sales at a time when citadel were trying to push female models. Is anyone here not buying like it's 1986 ?
The only 40k stuff I’ve bought in years were all gifts for friends and family. However, Space Hulk is a game I used to play with my wife, where she would only play as the Tyranids. A handful of female marines is something she might interestedin, especially if they can be themed and blinged like Dark Angels or Blood Angels. At the very least, she’d use one for Shadows of Brimstone.
And no, Sisters of Battle didn’t appeal to her. She’s not into that particular imagery. I’m more likely to build and play as SOB than she is. (I did buy some when they were new, as well as some SOS…but I mostly bought Shieldwolf’s Sisters of Tallaerium, Northern Ranger women and more recently their Valkyries. I also make sure to support Wargames Atlantics female options, because I enjoy having a good mix of characters, genders, even species. Let’s face it, GW is a company it’s hard to support, especially when there are better and cheaper options elsewhere.)
BobtheInquisitor wrote: None of the women I know asked for Barbie or Rom Coms. They have asked for Space Marines. If women trend towards wanting power fantasy Space Marines, shouldn’t they be included then?
If there really was a trend, then maybe. Or maybe representation would be bolstered in other ways. It's up to the company/authors.
Though I have to ask: "None"? Like, does your mom want female Space Marines and would she play 40k (consume product) if there were?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I think the closest super hero analogy isn’t Wakanda or Themyscyra, but Pepper Pots. She was just the squishy love interest in the first film, but in later films she got to wear Iron Man armor, too. She wasn’t forced to remain a passive support character for the real heroes, at least where the wish fulfillment aspect is concerned.
But she's still not Iron Man with all the focus and promotion that Iron Man gets. 40K has it's female power fantasy opportunities too, in the form of SoBs, Inquisitors, Custodes, Knights, Eldar and Tau.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: None of the women I know asked for Barbie or Rom Coms. They have asked for Space Marines. If women trend towards wanting power fantasy Space Marines, shouldn’t they be included then?
If there really was a trend, then maybe. Or maybe representation would be bolstered in other ways. It's up to the company/authors.
Though I have to ask: "None"? Like, does your mom want female Space Marines and would she play 40k (consume product) if there were?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I think the closest super hero analogy isn’t Wakanda or Themyscyra, but Pepper Pots. She was just the squishy love interest in the first film, but in later films she got to wear Iron Man armor, too. She wasn’t forced to remain a passive support character for the real heroes, at least where the wish fulfillment aspect is concerned.
But she's still not Iron Man with all the focus and promotion that Iron Man gets. 40K has it's female power fantasy opportunities too, in the form of SoBs, Inquisitors, Custodes, Knights, Eldar and Tau.
Well, none asked for Barbie, including my mom. Never asked how she feels about Space Marines. I should clarify the space marines sentence refers to a smaller subset of women I have talked to. But, yeah, Barbie has been out of style in my experience my whole life. Now Polly Pocket, she had a moment.
Lots ended up fighting beside Tony in Endgame, and her armor appeared in the poster, yes? I’d argue armored Pots became entwined with the Iton Man franchise just like Happy Hogan and Rhodie. Female Space Marines, even if GW released them tomorrow, would never get the whole spotlight from the many enduring male Space Marine characters. They’d pretty much be Pots in armor next to the established, popular Chapter Masters and Chaplains. But they’d be there in armor.
Automatically Appended Next Post: SOBs don’t fill the same niche. Neither do Inquisitors or Cadians or any of the other things you mentioned. That’s like telling a Doace Marine player he should be happy to play as Scion or something. They are completely different things.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: SOBs don’t fill the same niche. Neither do Inquisitors or Cadians or any of the other things you mentioned. That’s like telling a Doace Marine player he should be happy to play as Scion or something. They are completely different things.
So 1986 then.
No one buys female models, no female marines get made because no one buys female models and even if the desire is there the financials show a big red flag the size of a Morbius re-release.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As opposed to the brainwashed, chanting, destroyer of every world they encounter, fascist child soldiers as an exploration of men?
It rather hinges on how you approach representation - I replied to your post as it positioned orks as an 'exploration of masculinity' rather than just a faction that presents as male.
Because representation comes from two angles. On the one hand if I cannot feel represented by someone of a different sex/race/creed/etc then I am the problem, on the other hand if I am under represented that becomes its own form of exclusion.
That marines are all male is not in of itself the problem, that they are 95% of the narrative has made them exclusionary by marginalizing everything else.
I think there's a few layers to it, but I do agree. If Space Marines weren't the beginner friendly faction they are, if they weren't, as you say, 95% of the narrative, and if GW found a way to reconcile the whole "well, the Imperium is actually generally gender-blind" thing with the "but these Space Marines HAVE to be male for cultural reasons!" elements, then I'd agree.
I think, if those three areas were to be reconciled/solved, I wouldn't mind Space Marines being all-male. A possible example of the kind of reduction I'd be talking about would be:
Imagine if the ONLY Space Marine Chapter that existed was the Black Templars. Not "all Space Marines are now Black Templars": that all other Space Marines were gone, and only the Black Templars remained. So, stories not featuring Black Templars, media not featuring Black Templars, etc. is now all gone and vanished. Black Templars become as much of a faction as Grey Knights or Deathwatch are, with as much media space. Black Templars have a set aesthetic/design/theme, and they generally officially stick to that (obviously, people can do what they like with their minis, but in terms of how they're presented, they're not presented as ultra-customisable). They're all all-male, because of the Chapter's founding rites, culture, and beliefs, which stem from Ye Olde Earth beliefs and patriarchies.
I'm 100% okay with that, because they don't have a massive market dominance, they aren't the face of 40k, and they have a much more restricted and refined scope in what their design is supposed to be emulating, which isn't as the Ultra Customisable Beginner Friendly Faction.
Nice alternate universe vision.
Meanwhile, here in our universe it'd play out like this: One of the 19(?) factions IS going to get picked to be the lead image for marketing, etc. It WILL be made to be customizable & Beginner Friendly. I'll put my $ on the Black Templars. Because, even with their tabards, nothing says 40k like a (heroic) Space Marine.
Okay - if that's your perspective and take, that Space Marines will, no matter what flavour they are, no matter how "important" they are within the fictional universe, no matter how fascistic and evil they are presented, will ALWAYS be considered as the "lead image for marketing", and will always be "customisable and Beginner Friendly" - IF that is is the case, then Space Marines of all flavours should ALWAYS be gender neutral.
The flagship faction for 40k should be gender neutral. If you can't find a way for Space Marines to be anything other than the flagship faction, then they can't be gender neutral. Simple as.
Insectum7 wrote:I think fantasy or works of fiction should be free to explore their themes as they see fit, and companies should be free to market their materials or choose their target demographics as they see fit.
And likewise, people should be free to criticise and point out where those themes don't match the vibe they're trying to portray, and the market should be free to complain when their primary product is needlessly exclusionary.
Frankly, Space Marines being all male does not explore any worthwhile themes that other factions also can't explore, and pandering to certain demographics is not always a good thing from an ethic standpoint.
Not suggesting that 40k is, but for the sake of your argument - do you think is it ethical or justifiable for a company to market their materials to an audience of eugenicists or flat earthers or misogynists? Or is there a limit on which an company should cater to certain audiences?
insaniak wrote:When people feel more well represented in the mainstream, there won't be as much of a need for that sort of stuff you're branding as 'exclusionary'. But for that to happen, white men need to accept that there is room in fantasy for other people.
Here's what I'm reading. Women can have exclusionary fantasy. Black people can have exclusionary fantasy. But men can't have exclusionary fantasy because they are "priveledged" regardless of whether they're personal experience feels priveleged.
I feel like branding this as things that people 'can' and 'can't have is missing the point. Most western fantasy is already exclusionary fantasy for white men.
People who are under-represented in fantasy want to see more of themselves in fantasy. Because western fantasy has traditionally skewed towards white men, the way to tip the scales back towards the other direction is to create more focused fantasy that caters specifically to those under-represented groups. But that sort of thing is still very much a minority, and vastly overwhelmed by the volume of white male centric fantasy that still saturates the market, in part because parts of the market push back the moment anybody else gets any sort of representation.
When people feel more well represented in the mainstream, there won't be as much of a need for that sort of stuff you're branding as 'exclusionary'. But for that to happen, white men need to accept that there is room in fantasy for other people.
No one is arguing against more female representation. We are arguing against the homogenization and dilution of factions in a clumsy and ham-fisted way that alienates some of those who already feel attracted to them. You projecting your own feelings of inadequacy or oppression onto a fantasy sci-fi faction is not my problem and will not change how I feel about them.
If your argument for female space marines is "more representation" then the best thing to do is to increase female representation. The worst thing you can do to a franchise, in my opinion, is to fundamentally change, the model range, the culture, and the lore in order to appeal to a real world political or ideological demand from the outside. That very thing is exactly what is being expressed here.
I will be the first to advocate for sisters of battle to get more models, and different ranges with new themes. Give me more tactical sister models. Make a group based on Fenris. Give me more assassins. Give me more Sisters of Silence. Make rogue traders, and guardswomen.
Make a Mile Morales, and not a race swapped Spider Man. Everyone loves Miles Morales.
Here's what I'm reading. Women can have exclusionary fantasy. Black people can have exclusionary fantasy. But men can't have exclusionary fantasy because they are "priveledged" regardless of whether they're personal experience feels priveleged.
I feel like branding this as things that people 'can' and 'can't have is missing the point. Most western fantasy is already exclusionary fantasy for white men.
People who are under-represented in fantasy want to see more of themselves in fantasy. Because western fantasy has traditionally skewed towards white men, the way to tip the scales back towards the other direction is to create more focused fantasy that caters specifically to those under-represented groups. But that sort of thing is still very much a minority, and vastly overwhelmed by the volume of white male centric fantasy that still saturates the market, in part because parts of the market push back the moment anybody else gets any sort of representation.
When people feel more well represented in the mainstream, there won't be as much of a need for that sort of stuff you're branding as 'exclusionary'. But for that to happen, white men need to accept that there is room in fantasy for other people.
No one is arguing against more female representation. We are arguing against the homogenization and dilution of factions in a clumsy and ham-fisted way that alienates some of those who already feel attracted to them. You projecting your own feelings of inadequacy or oppression onto a fantasy sci-fi faction is not my problem and will not change how I feel about them.
If your argument for female space marines is "more representation" then the best thing to do is to increase female representation. The worst thing you can do to a franchise, in my opinion, is to fundamentally change, the model range, the culture, and the lore in order to appeal to a real world political or ideological demand from the outside. That very thing is exactly what is being expressed here.
I will be the first to advocate for sisters of battle to get more models, and different ranges with new themes. Give me more tactical sister models. Make a group based on Fenris. Give me more assassins. Give me more Sisters of Silence. Make rogue traders, and guardswomen.
Make a Mile Morales, and not a race swapped Spider Man. Everyone loves Miles Morales.
So you say you're not arguing against more representation for women, but you're also saying that women shouldn't be added to the single largest faction in the entire game.
You've also yet to actually define Brotherhood as different from Sisterhood in any way other than one is male and the other female. Or elaborated on where genderqueer folk would fit in. Or, especially, what themes of masculinity are so vital to Marines that adding women would make them terrible.
Edit:
Sledgehammer wrote: I will be the first to advocate for sisters of battle to get more models, and different ranges with new themes. Give me more tactical sister models. Make a group based on Fenris. Give me more assassins. Give me more Sisters of Silence. Make rogue traders, and guardswomen.
Mind pointing me to the threads where you've advocated for this? You were the first, after all.
Here's what I'm reading. Women can have exclusionary fantasy. Black people can have exclusionary fantasy. But men can't have exclusionary fantasy because they are "priveledged" regardless of whether they're personal experience feels priveleged.
I feel like branding this as things that people 'can' and 'can't have is missing the point. Most western fantasy is already exclusionary fantasy for white men.
People who are under-represented in fantasy want to see more of themselves in fantasy. Because western fantasy has traditionally skewed towards white men, the way to tip the scales back towards the other direction is to create more focused fantasy that caters specifically to those under-represented groups. But that sort of thing is still very much a minority, and vastly overwhelmed by the volume of white male centric fantasy that still saturates the market, in part because parts of the market push back the moment anybody else gets any sort of representation.
When people feel more well represented in the mainstream, there won't be as much of a need for that sort of stuff you're branding as 'exclusionary'. But for that to happen, white men need to accept that there is room in fantasy for other people.
No one is arguing against more female representation. We are arguing against the homogenization and dilution of factions in a clumsy and ham-fisted way that alienates some of those who already feel attracted to them. You projecting your own feelings of inadequacy or oppression onto a fantasy sci-fi faction is not my problem and will not change how I feel about them.
If your argument for female space marines is "more representation" then the best thing to do is to increase female representation. The worst thing you can do to a franchise, in my opinion, is to fundamentally change, the model range, the culture, and the lore in order to appeal to a real world political or ideological demand from the outside. That very thing is exactly what is being expressed here.
I will be the first to advocate for sisters of battle to get more models, and different ranges with new themes. Give me more tactical sister models. Make a group based on Fenris. Give me more assassins. Give me more Sisters of Silence. Make rogue traders, and guardswomen.
Make a Mile Morales, and not a race swapped Spider Man. Everyone loves Miles Morales.
So you say you're not arguing against more representation for women, but you're also saying that women shouldn't be added to the single largest faction in the entire game.
You've also yet to actually define Brotherhood as different from Sisterhood in any way other than one is male and the other female.
Or elaborated on where genderqueer folk would fit in.
Or, especially, what themes of masculinity are so vital to Marines that adding women would make them terrible.
Your inability to empathize or imagine the way I enjoy, am attracted to, or engage with media isn't my problem and honestly I don't think I need to justify that.
A.T. wrote: The elephant in the room of course, as others have pointed out is that GW has never been all that shy of changing their lore if they think it will make them money.
How many big time sisters players do we have here? Anyone purchase a couple of the hereticus battleforce sets? What about the new box set?
What killed female space marines originally wasn't representation, it was a simple lack of sales at a time when citadel were trying to push female models. Is anyone here not buying like it's 1986 ?
20 years ago, I would have bought plastic sisters. These days, I'm less keen on the aesthetic. I would buy sisters if they had an option for more practical armour. I'd buy female space marines in similarly practical armour... although the fact that if they do ever happen now, they'll be Primarisized makes that considerably less appealing than it would have been not so long ago.
Sledgehammer wrote: Your inability to empathize or imagine the way I enjoy, am attracted to, or engage with media isn't my problem and honestly I don't think I need to justify that.
So, your ability to enjoy the media of space marines is literally tied to the absence of women in it, even if you never have to actually involve women in your own part of the experience?
You're literally, honestly saying that you NEED people to not get something for you to have fun?
You can't empathise with people who might want to enjoy the presence of women, or even feel that without female presence don't feel welcome to do so, but expect those people to empathise with your need to deprive them?
Most of this thread has been various versions of male privilege, where the default is male and the attempt at putting women in is seen as some kind of loss, but your position takes the cake.
If somehow the casual misogyny exclusion is integral to enjoying space marines, It would be trivial to say that the primaris process works on women but many chapters /chapter masters retain their entrenched view that only men should be astartes. So you can have male only chapters and others with women. But your view is that even if you aren't personally a collector of the Imperial Dragons chapter of marines that has women in it, just the mere KNOWLEDGE that such a chapter exists ruins your ability to enjoy your Chad Marines...
And the fobbing off of 'well you've got the girl faction go use them' is a well worn but pointless exercise, because it's the combination of what a space marine is, with the ability to represent yourself within them, that is important, not that there's a 'girl' faction or not - because let's not forget, sisters are not described as the emperor's angels, aren't considered the greatest fighers in the imperium, don't have any enhancements. But you're supposed to accept that the only faction you get is the one that is specifically worse than the power fantasy faction, because some boys can't play with toys if a girl touched them.
But hey, if girls need to stick to sisters, I'm more than happy for GW to have the ecclesiarchy steal primaris geneseed and roid out their sisters. I mean, they're not space marines or belong to marine chapters, so surely that's not an issue right? Sisters can now be a power fantasy without stepping on the toes of marines.
Or do you actually need women to never appear as powerful as capable as men in the setting in order for your enjoyment to be satiated?
A.T. wrote: The elephant in the room of course, as others have pointed out is that GW has never been all that shy of changing their lore if they think it will make them money.
How many big time sisters players do we have here? Anyone purchase a couple of the hereticus battleforce sets? What about the new box set?
I really considered it. The Seraphim/ Exorcist box was PERFECT for me. I also considered all three Ordo Boxes. In the end, it was knowing that Krieg and Eldar were on the way that stopped me. I've really had to reduce my hobby budget. I'm going to want the new KT box, but I'm not sure I'll be able to afford it either. Selectively buying individual units to cover the most urgent gaps in 2-3 different armies is probably the only way I'm going to be able to spend for quite some time.
What killed female space marines originally wasn't representation, it was a simple lack of sales at a time when citadel were trying to push female models. Is anyone here not buying like it's 1986 ?
While this is technically true, I think it may also be a tad disingenuous. I don't think anyone would argue that those models were good, and I don't think those models were ever given the same chance to catch on. They weren't good; they weren't promoted. There was one blister pack of them- they were never released as a squad, or part of a squad.
Much of what's popular is more a matter of promotion more than inherent differences in quality.
Sledgehammer wrote: Your inability to empathize or imagine the way I enjoy, am attracted to, or engage with media isn't my problem and honestly I don't think I need to justify that.
So, your ability to enjoy the media of space marines is literally tied to the absence of women in it, even if you never have to actually involve women in your own part of the experience?
You're literally, honestly saying that you NEED people to not get something for you to have fun?
You can't empathise with people who might want to enjoy the presence of women, or even feel that without female presence don't feel welcome to do so, but expect those people to empathise with your need to deprive them?
Most of this thread has been various versions of male privilege, where the default is male and the attempt at putting women in is seen as some kind of loss, but your position takes the cake.
If somehow the casual misogyny exclusion is integral to enjoying space marines, It would be trivial to say that the primaris process works on women but many chapters /chapter masters retain their entrenched view that only men should be astartes. So you can have male only chapters and others with women. But your view is that even if you aren't personally a collector of the Imperial Dragons chapter of marines that has women in it, just the mere KNOWLEDGE that such a chapter exists ruins your ability to enjoy your Chad Marines...
And the fobbing off of 'well you've got the girl faction go use them' is a well worn but pointless exercise, because it's the combination of what a space marine is, with the ability to represent yourself within them, that is important, not that there's a 'girl' faction or not - because let's not forget, sisters are not described as the emperor's angels, aren't considered the greatest fighers in the imperium, don't have any enhancements. But you're supposed to accept that the only faction you get is the one that is specifically worse than the power fantasy faction, because some boys can't play with toys if a girl touched them.
But hey, if girls need to stick to sisters, I'm more than happy for GW to have the ecclesiarchy steal primaris geneseed and roid out their sisters. I mean, they're not space marines or belong to marine chapters, so surely that's not an issue right? Sisters can now be a power fantasy without stepping on the toes of marines.
Or do you actually need women to never appear as powerful as capable as men in the setting in order for your enjoyment to be satiated?
That's probably the best way of integrating "female space marines" without impacting the current culture, interpersonal dynamic, and call back to the monastic orders of old that make space marines what they are.
I'm not going to be 100% happy about lore changes that are done that way. Heck, I'm still not happy with the primaris geneseed lore. I still think it should have just been a new mark of armor instead.
But I am really tired of people coming in and saying "Female space marines or bust, and if you disagree with me you're sexist".
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think that Orks would be a genuinely fascinating exploration of masculine hegemony, and that if any faction should be the "male" faction, it's Orks!
Kind of feels insincere when you pick the race of brain damaged, howling, plague on every world they encounter football 'ooligans as your fascinating exploration of men.
Kinda feels insincere when half ya'll keep trying to pick the faction of BDSM skimp-dressed nuns that are used as TP for SM as your fascinating exploration of women.
Sledgehammer wrote: That's probably the best way of integrating "female space marines" without impacting the current culture, interpersonal dynamic, and call back to the monastic orders of old that make space marines what they are.
That's fair, I suppose. Adding women to a group modelled off the monastic orders of old would be like, say, making them genetically enhanced warriors in high tech armour who spit acid, absorb the knowledge of their enemies by eating their brains and put themselves into suspended animation at will... That would totally destroy my immersion in the faction.
Sledgehammer wrote: That's probably the best way of integrating "female space marines" without impacting the current culture, interpersonal dynamic, and call back to the monastic orders of old that make space marines what they are.
That's fair, I suppose. Adding women to a group modelled off the monastic orders of old would be like, say, making them genetically enhanced warriors in high tech armour who spit acid, absorb the knowledge of their enemies by eating their brains and put themselves into suspended animation at will... That would totally destroy my immersion in the faction.
The Teutonic order, and the broader catholic church, were famous for their gender inclusivity, you're 100% correct. Removing that inclusivity would completely destroy the theme of a faction based on that history and their broader hierarchy.
Liking a faction in a fantasy sci fi miniatures game for its adherence to a theme doesn't make someone sexist lol. People are tired of being brow beaten by sanctimonious arguments that continually bring their real world politics into a fantasy game.
JNAProductions wrote: The Vikings were well known to be Catholic. As were vampire angels.
Not to mention, Marines are generally not religious. There are exceptions (Black Templars) but they’re loosely based on anything at best.
Actually the Vikings all converted to Catholicism eventually. Pivotal to this was Harald Bluetooth and defeat of Guthrum at the Battle of Eddington and the resulting treaty of Wedmore.
And here is a great exploration of the knightly arms and armor and inspiration therein that the space marines can embody.
and that's just visual. I'm sure you know about how the catholic church orchestrated its hierarchies, and monastic orders. There obviously aren't any parallels there at all.
This thread has been a deep dive into exactly why my stance is "grow up or get out till you do". The very fabric of the argument is woven with exclusively the threads of sexism, gatekeeping, and a refusal to empathize with people who are (at most) marginally different from each other (gender? seriously?). Those tendencies? They don't stop at "no women SM." The whole FSM "debate" is nothing but a litmus test for who's actually worth engaging with.
Playing a 4+ hour game with someone who can not or will not treat other people with basic respect is an awful experience, and one of the bigger reasons our hobby has it's god-awful reputation. Those that define themselves or their hobby by "no women allowed" are either uninformed on why FSM is a stupid "debate", or aren't going to be fun to talk or play the hobby with. A ten minute conversation in person (or a handful of thread posts) will tell you which you are working with. I've personally added something like 8-10 people who are clearly exhibiting one or more of the above toxic traits in this thread to my block list.
Sledgehammer wrote: The Teutonic order, and the broader catholic church, were famous for their gender inclusivity, you're 100% correct. Removing that inclusivity would completely destroy the theme of a faction based on that history and their broader hierarchy.
Were they famous for their Vikings? Vampires? Werewolves? Mutants wreathed in otherworldly flames? Dressing up in vaguely roman style armour and ruling relatively benevolently while the rest of the galaxy went to pot?
I do know that half of the Teutonic Order famously went renegade and turned into freakish mutants who live in a portal to another dimension, but I wasn't so sure about those other things.
Liking a faction in a fantasy sci fi miniatures game for its adherence to a theme doesn't make someone sexist lol. People are tired of being brow beaten by sanctimonious arguments that continually bring their real world politics into a fantasy game.
I don't recall having called you sexist. I've tried to get you to consider what it is about your all male faction that would actually be different if there were girls allowed in, and you don't seem able to answer beyond insisting that it would be different.
And the above is intended to illustrate that basing a fictional faction on historical roots doesn't mean that those roots need to be rigidly adhered to. It's an inspiration, not a template. Space Marines are loosely based off monastic orders, but with some key differences... not least being that they're mostly not actually religious.
And if you can accept that a group can be loosely based on monks without being religious, why exactly is it that having women join in is a bridge too far?
Sledgehammer wrote: The Teutonic order, and the broader catholic church, were famous for their gender inclusivity, you're 100% correct. Removing that inclusivity would completely destroy the theme of a faction based on that history and their broader hierarchy.
Were they famous for their Vikings? Vampires? Werewolves? Mutants wreathed in otherworldly flames? Dressing up in vaguely roman style armour and ruling relatively benevolently while the rest of the galaxy went to pot?
I do know that half of the Teutonic Order famously went renegade and turned into freakish mutants who live in a portal to another dimension, but I wasn't so sure about those other things.
Don't forget about the two other groups of that order that were so bad, we erased all mention of them from the history books.
Sledgehammer wrote: The Teutonic order, and the broader catholic church, were famous for their gender inclusivity, you're 100% correct. Removing that inclusivity would completely destroy the theme of a faction based on that history and their broader hierarchy.
Were they famous for their Vikings? Vampires? Werewolves? Mutants wreathed in otherworldly flames? Dressing up in vaguely roman style armour and ruling relatively benevolently while the rest of the galaxy went to pot?
I do know that half of the Teutonic Order famously went renegade and turned into freakish mutants who live in a portal to another dimension, but I wasn't so sure about those other things.
Well vikings absolutely did exist within the context of the catholic world. Cnute the great was famously Catholic as was Harald Hadrada. Many of the Varangian guard in Constantinople converted leading to the greater conversion of the Kievian Rus.
Vampires are famously catholic in their themes. Vlad Tepesh himself is said to have sold his soul to the devil in an attempt to to gain immortality. In fact Dracul means devil in Romanian and the cross is almost always associated with helping to ward off vampires.
The Teutonic order did eventually turn into heretics when the grand master Albert the 1st converted to Protestantism, secularized the order and reordered it into Prussia.....
Famously the Knights Templar were declared heretics by the French king and all were ordered to be burned at the stake.
Sledgehammer wrote: Well vikings absolutely did exist within the context of the catholic world. Cnute the great was famously Catholic as was Harald Hadrada. Many of the Varangian guard in Constantinople converted leading to the greater conversion of the Kievian Rus.
Vampires are famously catholic in their themes. Vlad Tepesh himself is said to have sold his soul to the devil in an attempt to to gain immortality. In fact Dracul means devil in Romanian and the cross is almost always associated with helping to ward off vampires.
So... if we're loosening the criteria for Space Marines from 'Monks' to 'Existed in the Catholic world' it would seem that women should be fine.
Sledgehammer wrote: Well vikings absolutely did exist within the context of the catholic world. Cnute the great was famously Catholic as was Harald Hadrada. Many of the Varangian guard in Constantinople converted leading to the greater conversion of the Kievian Rus.
Vampires are famously catholic in their themes. Vlad Tepesh himself is said to have sold his soul to the devil in an attempt to to gain immortality. In fact Dracul means devil in Romanian and the cross is almost always associated with helping to ward off vampires.
So... if we're loosening the criteria for Space Marines from 'Monks' to 'Existed in the Catholic world' it would seem that women should be fine.
You do realize the space wolves are basically the Varangian guard? Whose entire purpose for being was that as foreigners they would more readily squash internal resistance. Sounds like the emperors wolves burning prospero, right?
Oh yeah and they also existed under an imperial system of religious and political control. The very same government where the double headed eagle comes from. You know the one that represents both heads of religion and politics under one body?
Sledgehammer wrote: You do realize the space wolves are basically the Varangian guard?
Can't be. I'm told that Space Marines are modelled exclusively off catholic monks.
The Varangian Guard, and the Byzantine emperors were very famous for their inclusion of front line shield maidens. It was a perfect fit for the religious and political system under which the emperor derived his authority.
The Imperium is backwards and old fashioned and space marines help to emphasize that.
Insectum7 wrote:I think fantasy or works of fiction should be free to explore their themes as they see fit, and companies should be free to market their materials or choose their target demographics as they see fit.
And likewise, people should be free to criticise and point out where those themes don't match the vibe they're trying to portray, and the market should be free to complain when their primary product is needlessly exclusionary.
Critique away. I am 1000% for your right to say whatever you want about it. I just prefer it be polite and in good faith.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Frankly, Space Marines being all male does not explore any worthwhile themes that other factions also can't explore, and pandering to certain demographics is not always a good thing from an ethic standpoint.
You are welcome to your opinion. I disagree.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Not suggesting that 40k is, but for the sake of your argument - do you think is it ethical or justifiable for a company to market their materials to an audience of eugenicists or flat earthers or misogynists? Or is there a limit on which an company should cater to certain audiences?
I tend towards the very permissive when it comes to expression or products. I myself have lots of music which is pretty spicy in a all sorts of directions, including against "whitey". I accept that this is an aspect of living in a complex, nonhomogeneous society, and I'm proud to be a part of it. These products/artworks allow me to explore spaces or thoughts that aren't familiar to me, and it's a wonderful thing to get a feel for a perspective that isn't my own, even if it's hostile to me. When it comes to fiction and fantasy, rule 34 comes to mind. If you can think of it, there's p*rn for it, and that's fine by me. It follows for other forms of fantasy or ideologies too. I'm open to people having the freedom to explore whatever they want to explore. There's very little I would ban, the obvious target being cp.
The modern problem is that of misinformation, which we as a society have to figure out more effective ways of dealing with. The greatness of the internet is that people with niche interests can find each other and mingle (yay furry conventions?), the downside of course is the spread of conspiracy theories or just bad data. I don't know how to combat that, but it seems to me to be one of the most pressing issues of our time. Well, that and trends of wealth inequality. . .
insaniak wrote:When people feel more well represented in the mainstream, there won't be as much of a need for that sort of stuff you're branding as 'exclusionary'. But for that to happen, white men need to accept that there is room in fantasy for other people.
Precisely.
There is sooo much room for fantasy for non-white men. 50 Shades of Gray and Barbie made piles of money. Hip Hop has taken over the entire world and made globally recognized icons. Anime and K-pop are huge. Whole genres of art and products exist that cater to not-my-demographic. I understand full well that when I was brought up in the 80's and 90's this was very much not the case, but it ain't the 90's anymore. Production has only become more democratized over that time, many of the old gatekeepers have become irrelevant, and lots of players have figured out that targeting non-traditional demographics can pay dividends (like when Subaru stealthily targeted lesbians back in the day).
It just so happens that within that landscape, boys/men are still a demographic.
Liking a faction in a fantasy sci fi miniatures game for its adherence to a theme doesn't make someone sexist lol. People are tired of being brow beaten by sanctimonious arguments that continually bring their real world politics into a fantasy game.
I don't recall having called you sexist.
That language has been used, even if you didn't use it yourself.
Sledgehammer wrote: Well vikings absolutely did exist within the context of the catholic world. Cnute the great was famously Catholic as was Harald Hadrada. Many of the Varangian guard in Constantinople converted leading to the greater conversion of the Kievian Rus.
Vampires are famously catholic in their themes. Vlad Tepesh himself is said to have sold his soul to the devil in an attempt to to gain immortality. In fact Dracul means devil in Romanian and the cross is almost always associated with helping to ward off vampires.
So... if we're loosening the criteria for Space Marines from 'Monks' to 'Existed in the Catholic world' it would seem that women should be fine.
You do realize the space wolves are basically the Varangian guard? Whose entire purpose for being was that as foreigners they would more readily squash internal resistance. Sounds like the emperors wolves burning prospero, right?
Oh yeah and they also existed under an imperial system of religious and political control. The very same government where the double headed eagle comes from. You know the one that represents both heads of religion and politics under one body?
I think this is making spurious connections after the event, and is crediting GW with a hell of a lot more thought than I think they ever actually put in in the first place. Think less like a history professor and more like a 12-year-old. You know what would be cool? Viking space marines! Or... or... how about Vampire space marines?
PenitentJake wrote: While this is technically true, I think it may also be a tad disingenuous. I don't think anyone would argue that those models were good, and I don't think those models were ever given the same chance to catch on. They weren't good; they weren't promoted. There was one blister pack of them- they were never released as a squad, or part of a squad.
It was explicitly addressed by Rick Priestley that the decision not to make female models by citadel was based on sales (or rather lack thereof) of models from their pre-rogue trader lines.
Jayne and Gabs weren't part of the original decision, but I suppose relevant to this conversation in that they didn't sell well enough to change it either.
You get FSMs one of three ways -
1) other female models are so popular that GW takes the risk
2) Some other company rakes it in making female space marines
3) GW takes a massive punt with its principle money maker
So far it seems like I personally have more sisters of battle/silence than this whole thread combined which speaks poorly for their sales and I can't think of any competitors raking it in with FSMs so that leaves 3 - GW taking a punt with their single most important property based on vocal desire not backed by anything in their financial columns.
My guess would be that had the new sisters line run red hot that we would have had FSMs by now. I suspect that they may even try female custodes to test the waters again in the next few years. And customers will vote with their wallets, or not. Ultimately GW will take the path of greatest profit.
CynosureEldar wrote: Kinda feels insincere when half ya'll keep trying to pick the faction of BDSM skimp-dressed nuns that are used as TP for SM as your fascinating exploration of women.
Take your fascinating exploration of straw men elsewhere.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In this situation, I believe that non-male Astartes *does* improve the product/story/universe, because there is no benefit to things remaining as they are (for the aforementioned reasons of it being incongruous to the wider Imperium, being based in outdated views which are presented uncritically, and actively going against the primary hobby niche of what Space Marines are, which is as a blank slate faction which caters to newcomers).
Because Space Marines, at present, could be improved to better fulfil what their creative niche is, I believe they should change.
For me it depends on how FSM would be introduced. A simple retcon à la Custodes gets a big, fat thumbs down. This is not a natural development of the story but rather a cheap (albeit easy) shortcut to a desired outcome. It would lessen my investment in the setting to see that long standing lore gets changed on a whim like that without the proper attention it would deserve.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In an ideal world, where 40k starts from scratch, and Space Marines aren't given anywhere near the same degree of media attention, where they aren't the default face of the game, where they have as much focus now as, say, the Votann have now - I would absolutely agree. It's why I've said that I don't have an issue with all-male factions (I think that Orks would be a genuinely fascinating exploration of masculine hegemony, and that if any faction should be the "male" faction, it's Orks!), but rather that the "all-male" faction currently is also the one that gets the most attention in all forms of media, and is widely considered the Starter Faction (and also has the widest range of play and aesthetic options presented).
However, I'm being realistic here - that's simply not going to happen any time soon.
Is there a big difference between starting 40k from scratch and introducing FSM right now? All the existing material wouldn't change their male protagonists, male heroes and unhelmeted models. We have to start at 0 anyway to get all these things on the table. Since the effort has to be made either way, we might as well put it into other factions were the overall benefit would be better for the hobby as a whole.
¹If FSM are added to lore, that allows people who like them to use them, AND it continues to allow people who don't like them to not use them. Nobody loses anything.
²If FSM continue to be excluded from the lore, people who want them can't use them.
³So one point of view excludes, where the other does not.
Emphasis mine.
¹ Again, depending on how it is done. And I'm beating this horse again and again, because we have the precedent of how female Custodes were introduced: If FSM just get retconned in, we further lose setting consistency and people's investment in it.
² There is nobody stopping you from your own headcanon. Playing with any custom chapter is not more or less an issue than you putting official female heads from other sets on your Marines. I was under the impression that official Warhammer stores allow even non-official bits as long as you "created them yourself", which of course you did wink wink.
³ Inclusion/Exclusion does not carry an automatic value by itself. Neither does lore consistency, for that matter. It is hard to compare these abstract concepts with each other. But there is a solution how to achieve representation without changing the existing lore and that is why I prefer to put the focus on other factions and model ranges.
Friendly piece of advice: not the best assumption to make on a world-wide message board.
Why? What is the connection to it being world-wide? I think the phrase is perfectly fitting for someone who positions herself as a defender of inclusion in one post and dismissing the complete other half of the discussion as just being sexist rambling in order to strawman the own position towards victory in another.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: No one has been able to explain to me how letting other people enjoy a thing more - even if that enjoyment is in a way that is slightly different from how you enjoy it - in any way diminishes how you enjoy said thing.
There have been several people giving their explanation why they take issue with the change for various reasons. You don't have to agree that their position is a better argument than yours, but surely you can emphasise enough to understand what they are saying? I understand your argument for representation, I simply do not see it as a better one than mine.
JNAProductions wrote: B-You can field an all-male Marine force. Adding women to Marines won't change that.
And if your fantasy is built on excluding others, then I don't think it's a very healthy fantasy to have.
If you want to pretend to be a big, badass warrior, protecting the people he loves from vile threats (whether you see that in Space Marines or you're playing a D&D or a videogame or anything) that's fine. That's healthy.
If your fantasy is, instead, predicated on denying others joy... That doesn't seem like a very good stance to have.
Non-representation is not the same as exclusion. I'm not excluded from Sailor Moon because Tuxedo Mask is a side character with a much lamer outfit than the MC. I'm not excluded from Tomb Raider because I can't play Larry Croft. Why is the joy of one person more valuable than that of another? Why is it okay for you to lessen my joy, but it is wrong for me to lessen yours?
insaniak wrote: ¹ I feel like branding this as things that people 'can' and 'can't have is missing the point. Most western fantasy is already exclusionary fantasy for white men.
² People who are under-represented in fantasy want to see more of themselves in fantasy. Because western fantasy has traditionally skewed towards white men, the way to tip the scales back towards the other direction is to create more focused fantasy that caters specifically to those under-represented groups. But that sort of thing is still very much a minority, and vastly overwhelmed by the volume of white male centric fantasy that still saturates the market, in part because parts of the market push back the moment anybody else gets any sort of representation.
When people feel more well represented in the mainstream, there won't be as much of a need for that sort of stuff you're branding as 'exclusionary'. ³ But for that to happen, white men need to accept that there is room in fantasy for other people.
¹ ...and most love novels are written for women, and most Manga protagonists are based on Asian people, and most Bollywood actors are Indian. What is the point/issue here? People put their own experience into the art they create and towards the audience they want to target. You can like Bollywood or not, but I think it's silly to demand them to include more Europeans, Africans and Asians into their movies to not feel left out.
² Why do the scales have to be forcefully tipped, though? Last time I checked, there is no law forbidding anybody from coming up with their own fantasy stories or superheroes. Maybe there is either nobody wanting to create art where that group is taking center stage, or there is no demand for it. I don't think you mean to blame the existing customers for not buying things they are not interested in when you say "in part because parts of the market push back the moment anybody else gets any sort of representation.", but what do you mean? How is the market preventing me from creating a product, that is aimed at a specific group, from having success?
³ I haven't noticed someone posting in this thread to gatekeep women from 40k in general. So I don't see how anybody is supposed to accept space for other representation. People simply say that this specific spot is not suitable for various, personal reasons. There is plenty of space, however, everywhere else in 40k.
¹If FSM are added to lore, that allows people who like them to use them, AND it continues to allow people who don't like them to not use them. Nobody loses anything.
²If FSM continue to be excluded from the lore, people who want them can't use them.
³So one point of view excludes, where the other does not.
Emphasis mine.
³ Inclusion/Exclusion does not carry an automatic value by itself. Neither does lore consistency, for that matter. It is hard to compare these abstract concepts with each other. But there is a solution how to achieve representation without changing the existing lore and that is why I prefer to put the focus on other factions and model ranges.
I'm not sure what you are on about with "automatic value" and "abstract concepts."
Inclusive has a very specific meaning, as does exclusive, and neither are very abstract. If you are confused about how the inclusion of female space marines in the lore facilitates and legitimizes the use of female space marine models in a game, and how the exclusion of female space marines from the lore prevents or inhibits the use of female space marine models in the game, I'm not sure we can have a discussion in good faith, because these things feel pretty obvious.
But I will respectfully acknowledge some of the arguments on the other side as I do understand some of the feelings and potential fears around this. As people have said, HOW this was done would be important: even many of the folks advocating for the inclusion of FSM in the lore would not be satisfied if it was done poorly. The lost chapters are one way, Cawl's ongoing work is another. But simply retconning it, I think, would severely disappoint most people on both sides.
Second, I understand people's slippery slope fear. So if a WD article talks about Cawl making the first FSM, and planning to make more, that's going to be enough for some of the folks on the FSM side of the debate, because it creates a lore consistent way for someone to put an FSM model on the table without an opponent screaming at them that such a thing is not possible. Some people on team FSM may want more than that, but others would be okay with it, and it's certainly more inclusive than what we've got now.
But the little "what if" engine in the back of everyone else's head is whispering: "Yeah, but what if it doesn't stop there."
And I think this is where the other team might have some legitimate arguments to make. So lets say GW makes a 5-woman Primaris unit. What I'd do as the designer is suggest that this kit can be used in two ways: you can use it as a a coherent unit, or you could swap those models into other male-but-otherwise-identical units to include co-ed units. While that is likely to be a bridge too far for some people on the no-FSM side, others might be okay with it at that level- they don't have to buy it, and if they play against it, it won't be a whole lot different.
But then... What if it sells? What if high quality sculpts in plastic reveal that it wasn't a lack of interest that prevented people from buying those original power armoured women decades ago, but rather, the fact that they were some of the worst scupts to ever be produced by GW (or any other studio, for that matter)? Because if it sold well, GW wouldn't LET it end there.
Next would be characters. An FSM Apothecary, for example, fits the nurse trope/stereotype, and might be more accepted by the no-FSM camp. But then what? A librarian? A lieutenant?
And eventually, a named character. And then, would GW decide to make an entirely FSM chapter?
And then, would video games and books have to feature FSM?
I think every player, no matter which camp they're in, has an ideal inclusion threshold. And that's the squishy issue- where those thresholds collide. Because a signature piece of my support for FSM includes the ability for people who don't like them to be able to not use them. If I've always played Blood Angels, that WD Article about Cawl inventing the first FSM doesn't prevent me from continuing to play my all male BA, just as I always have. And it doesn't have to infect my conception of them as a "Brotherhood of warrior Monks (TM)"
But if GW goes and creates a BA FSM character with rules that make it a must-have for a competitive player... Well yeah, as much as I support FSM, I do see how that might actually harm the BA player's appreciation for their army that they've been building, collecting and playing since 1992.
I think that it's hard to know which level of inclusion people are advocating or objecting to when we get into these debates. If your fear is that the inclusion of FSM will lead to a completely different looking faction with as many FSM models as male in all of the canon subfactions, and you're arguing against someone who just wants a WD article that says Cawl figured out how to make FSM work... Well obviously each side is going to think the other is unreasonable... Because you aren't arguing about the same thing.
And for the record, your idea about de-emphasizing SM IS a good idea, because it makes progress toward solving two problems instead of one. Even if we got our FSM lore, marines would STILL be a disproportionally represented faction, and that problem would still eventually need to be solved. I hope we get some Fem-Krieg, and I think the Warp Spider PL is female. I could stand not hearing about marines at all for at least Q1 of 2025.
But I think that WD article would still be good for the hobby. I think even the 5 woman box would be good for the hobby. There's no reason GW can't do both.
Non-representation is not the same as exclusion. I'm not excluded from Sailor Moon because Tuxedo Mask is a side character with a much lamer outfit than the MC. I'm not excluded from Tomb Raider because I can't play Larry Croft. Why is the joy of one person more valuable than that of another? Why is it okay for you to lessen my joy, but it is wrong for me to lessen yours?
Non-representation and exclusion aren't equal, but non-representation is one of the ways exclusion is achieved. The flu and sickness aren't equal either, but the flu is one form sickness can take. And I think that the examples are somewhat flawed- both Sailor Moon and Tomb Raider are vehicles that were designed specifically to provide female representation in male dominated media. Sailor Moon and Lara Croft ARE the FSM of hero Anime and adventure videogames.
But also: the existence of Lara Croft, and the lore behind her in no way implies that a man could not be a kickass archaeologist. I don't know sailor moon very well, but if this Tuxedo Mask character is a hero, whether minor or not, that's already more inclusive than Marines.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: Why do the scales have to be forcefully tipped? Because they aren't going to balance themselves without a helping hand.
Why is a balanced scale desireable in <fantasy>, if it does not occur naturally? Keep in mind my previous post about either people not creating things, or people not buying things that would help even out representation in this area.
Are we going to force artists to change what fantasy they wanted to create, if it is deemed too one sided in representation? Are we going to force people to buy things that don't appeal to them until the sales numbers with non-representative <fantasy> are equal?
Globally speaking, I'm quite the minority. Are we going to ask Chinese and Indians to represent me more in their <fantasy>? Japanese seem to have a kink for German words already, but I wouldn't mind showing up more often as an actual protagonist.
I'm not sure what you are on about with "automatic value" and "abstract concepts."
Inclusive has a very specific meaning, as does exclusive, and neither are very abstract. If you are confused about how the inclusion of female space marines in the lore facilitates and legitimizes the use of female space marine models in a game, and how the exclusion of female space marines from the lore prevents or inhibits the use of female space marine models in the game, I'm not sure we can have a discussion in good faith, because these things feel pretty obvious.
What I mean is that "Inclusion" is not automatically the "right" choice and "exclusion" is not automatically the "wrong" choice. Doing sports and eating vegetables is "healthy" and there is no room for debate. On the other side we can objectively say that sitting on the couch all day and eating ultra processed food will do you no good. The benefits of the proposed change stand against its drawbacks and I haven't found a way yet to qualify them for myself to see which one would come out on top. I hope I get my train of thought across.
PenitentJake wrote: I think that it's hard to know which level of inclusion people are advocating or objecting to when we get into these debates. If your fear is that the inclusion of FSM will lead to a completely different looking faction with as many FSM models as male in all of the canon subfactions, and you're arguing against someone who just wants a WD article that says Cawl figured out how to make FSM work... Well obviously each side is going to think the other is unreasonable... Because you aren't arguing about the same thing.
I think this is a very important part of the debate that has been left out mostly so far. My own headcanon / expectation how FSM fit into the faction would be complete parity in capabilities, no segregation in unit assignment. So any Marine, regardless of unit or position, would be just as likely to be female as being male. Model-wise I'd see every new unit having 1-2 heads without helmets extra that are more feminine than now, but a far shot from being... uh refined? for lack of a better word. So kinda brutish and bulky, similar to the existing male heads.
PenitentJake wrote: And I think that the examples are somewhat flawed- both Sailor Moon and Tomb Raider are vehicles that were designed specifically to provide female representation in male dominated media. Sailor Moon and Lara Croft ARE the FSM of hero Anime and adventure videogames.
But also: the existence of Lara Croft, and the lore behind her in no way implies that a man could not be a kickass archaeologist. I don't know sailor moon very well, but if this Tuxedo Mask character is a hero, whether minor or not, that's already more inclusive than Marines.
I would assume that Rick Priestley did not have 40yo housewifes in mind as his target audience either, when he created Warhammer in the 80s. So I don't agree on the point about Sailor Moon and Tomb Raider being designed specifically for another audience making it a flawed example. The thing is that both stand on their own. We didn't bother George Lucas to release a version of "Fate of Atlantis" where we could swap the character to play "Diana Jones". We didn't push Goku aside to make room for Videl or ChiChi in Dragon Ball. They have their own stories and are cool in their own ways. We can give women a better representation in 40k without compromising on either side, that's all I'm saying.
Tuxedo Mask is this guy here. The meme should tell you everything you need to know about him :
Sledgehammer wrote:That's probably the best way of integrating "female space marines" without impacting the current culture, interpersonal dynamic, and call back to the monastic orders of old that make space marines what they are.
You mention "current culture" and "interpersonal dynamic", but you've STILL not explained how those are incapable of existing if women are present in them.
Why would women being part of the Space Marines change their "current culture" and "interpersonal dynamic" of barely human steroid infused hypnoconditioned child soldiers?
You keep making all these claims about what Space Marines are, but you're incapable of defining them! And then you have the gall to say "I don't need to prove that": actually, the burden is on you, the claimant, to defend those claims.
I'll repost those questions, just so everyone else can see what you're too afraid to answer: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships? - Where do queer people fit in with these definitions? - How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium? - If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women? - What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men? - Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
But I am really tired of people coming in and saying "Female space marines or bust, and if you disagree with me you're sexist".
And I'm really tired of your refusal to answer simple questions to elucidate your point.
Sledgehammer wrote: That's probably the best way of integrating "female space marines" without impacting the current culture, interpersonal dynamic, and call back to the monastic orders of old that make space marines what they are.
That's fair, I suppose. Adding women to a group modelled off the monastic orders of old would be like, say, making them genetically enhanced warriors in high tech armour who spit acid, absorb the knowledge of their enemies by eating their brains and put themselves into suspended animation at will... That would totally destroy my immersion in the faction.
The Teutonic order, and the broader catholic church, were famous for their gender inclusivity, you're 100% correct. Removing that inclusivity would completely destroy the theme of a faction based on that history and their broader hierarchy.
The Teutonic order, also known for their vampires, wolf riding vikings, greco-roman designs, worship of fire and machinery, stealth based warfare, African naming conventions, druids, Mongolian facial hair, and emo haircuts.
Newsflash: not all Space Marines are based on catholic iconography - in fact, it's a minority that are (Black Templars, Dark Angels). You know who IS based on Catholic iconography? The Sisters of Battle... who aren't men!
It's almost like something can be themed on elements of something, without having to copy every single aspect of it! For the last time, no matter how many times you pretend it is, not all Space Marines are based entirely on the Catholic Church!
People are tired of being brow beaten by sanctimonious arguments that continually bring their real world politics into a fantasy game.
Women existing isn't political. Women existing in the Ultra Customisable Beginner Friendly Little Timmy Faction shouldn't be political either.
Sledgehammer wrote: The Teutonic order, and the broader catholic church, were famous for their gender inclusivity, you're 100% correct. Removing that inclusivity would completely destroy the theme of a faction based on that history and their broader hierarchy.
Were they famous for their Vikings? Vampires? Werewolves? Mutants wreathed in otherworldly flames? Dressing up in vaguely roman style armour and ruling relatively benevolently while the rest of the galaxy went to pot?
I do know that half of the Teutonic Order famously went renegade and turned into freakish mutants who live in a portal to another dimension, but I wasn't so sure about those other things.
Well vikings absolutely did exist within the context of the catholic world. Cnute the great was famously Catholic as was Harald Hadrada. Many of the Varangian guard in Constantinople converted leading to the greater conversion of the Kievian Rus.
And did these Vikings also ride wolves into battle? Did they worship their native land spirits which granted them their strength? Because that doesn't sound very Catholic to me (also, not at all similar to the Teutonic Order you mentioned earlier).
Vampires are famously catholic in their themes.
hahahahahahahaha lol no
Part of my degree was literally on this matter, and you're horribly misinformed. Vampires are famously *sexual and transgressive* in their themes - either as a criticism of sexual liberation, or an endorsement of it. Vampires in Western literary canon (aka, the ones that GW are most influenced by) have more association with Victorian prudishness and xenophobia than they do with religion. The religious aspects are nearly always a later addition, mostly with religion being used as the element that vampires *transgress* against.
Stop making things up.
Vlad Tepesh himself is said to have sold his soul to the devil in an attempt to to gain immortality.
Vlad Tepes was a real man. "Selling his soul to the devil" isn't exclusive to Catholicism, and more importantly, is a later addition to the initial vampire mythos.
In fact Dracul means devil in Romanian and the cross is almost always associated with helping to ward off vampires.
The cross as an anti-vampire symbol is not present in the first stories about vampires, and is hardly the only thing which does ward them off in folklore - vampires aren't an exclusively Catholic myth.
Sledgehammer wrote:The Imperium is backwards and old fashioned and space marines help to emphasize that.
Except for all the women serving in the Imperial Guard, and the current Lord Castellan of Cadia being a woman, and multiple HLOT being women, and the Sisters of Silence being the left hand of the Emperor, and the Imperium being institutionally gender-blind.
The Space Marines are the ONLY Imperial institution which has no women, in fact. That doesn't really back up your claim that "the Imperium is backwards and old fashioned" when it comes to gender. Yes, the Imperium *is* backwards and fascistic and absurd, but in gender? No way.
Insectum7 wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Not suggesting that 40k is, but for the sake of your argument - do you think is it ethical or justifiable for a company to market their materials to an audience of eugenicists or flat earthers or misogynists? Or is there a limit on which an company should cater to certain audiences?
I tend towards the very permissive when it comes to expression or products.
Right - so you're fine with people actively catering to and enabling dangerous, genuinely hateful people who would happily commit crimes against someone on the basis of their sexuality, race, or gender?
There's a difference between "different views" and "I want to kill this person because they're a *insert slur here*". And apparently, you think it's okay to market toward those people.
Sorry, but I don't really think it's appropriate for me to continue a conversation with you, if you believe that's acceptable.
a_typical_hero wrote:For me it depends on how FSM would be introduced. A simple retcon à la Custodes gets a big, fat thumbs down. This is not a natural development of the story but rather a cheap (albeit easy) shortcut to a desired outcome. It would lessen my investment in the setting to see that long standing lore gets changed on a whim like that without the proper attention it would deserve.
Whereas on my end, I don't think it deserves any fanfare. It doesn't need it.
We didn't need any fanfare when Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons and Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans were introduced. We didn't need any fanfare when half-eldar chief astropaths were removed. We didn't need fanfare when Stormraven Gunships became usable by all Chapters.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In an ideal world, where 40k starts from scratch, and Space Marines aren't given anywhere near the same degree of media attention, where they aren't the default face of the game, where they have as much focus now as, say, the Votann have now - I would absolutely agree. It's why I've said that I don't have an issue with all-male factions (I think that Orks would be a genuinely fascinating exploration of masculine hegemony, and that if any faction should be the "male" faction, it's Orks!), but rather that the "all-male" faction currently is also the one that gets the most attention in all forms of media, and is widely considered the Starter Faction (and also has the widest range of play and aesthetic options presented).
However, I'm being realistic here - that's simply not going to happen any time soon.
Is there a big difference between starting 40k from scratch and introducing FSM right now?
Uh, yes? Because, well, not every faction in 40k is a Space Marine? Yes, of COURSE there'd be a massive difference! Whereas with women Space Marines, do you know what you need? A headswap sprue, and different pronouns when a new Codex is released.
We've seen how little effort it takes, from the Custodes. And they didn't even bother with a headswap sprue!
¹If FSM are added to lore, that allows people who like them to use them, AND it continues to allow people who don't like them to not use them. Nobody loses anything. ²If FSM continue to be excluded from the lore, people who want them can't use them.
³So one point of view excludes, where the other does not.
Emphasis mine.
¹ Again, depending on how it is done. And I'm beating this horse again and again, because we have the precedent of how female Custodes were introduced: If FSM just get retconned in, we further lose setting consistency and people's investment in it.
I wouldn't lose investment. Hell, if anything, I'd *gain* investment in 40k for it.
For what it's worth, I think how GW added in Custodes was the correct decision. We don't need a "HEY THIS RANDOM TECHPRIEST FOUND A WAY TO MAKE WOMEN CUSTODES NOW!" lore announcement. Honestly, GW statement of "there were always women Custodes" should've been elaborated on further: something more like "in some initial publications, we had previously used exclusively male language to refer to Custodes, and it was believed that only male Custodes existed. We feel that this is needlessly restrictive, and is an outdated part of the background of 40k. Like previous retcons in our history, we will be retconning the idea that Custodes have always been male, and going forwards, this means that women Custodes will have always been present in their history."
Friendly piece of advice: not the best assumption to make on a world-wide message board.
Why? What is the connection to it being world-wide? I think the phrase is perfectly fitting for someone who positions herself as a defender of inclusion in one post and dismissing the complete other half of the discussion as just being sexist rambling in order to strawman the own position towards victory in another.
Politely, if someone says that they don't want to be referred to in a certain way, and you want to be respectful of them, it's customary to apologise and not double down on it.
That is the respectful thing to do, and would be fitting with the rules of the forum here.
Non-representation is not the same as exclusion. I'm not excluded from Sailor Moon because Tuxedo Mask is a side character with a much lamer outfit than the MC. I'm not excluded from Tomb Raider because I can't play Larry Croft. Why is the joy of one person more valuable than that of another? Why is it okay for you to lessen my joy, but it is wrong for me to lessen yours?
The difference is that Sailor Moon and Tomb Raider aren't franchises which are based on you collecting an army of toy soldiers, and getting to customise them. When you play Tomb Raider, you are playing as Lara Croft, who is always Lara Croft. When you watch Sailor Moon, you are watching Sailor Moon.
When you are playing 40k, there is a very strong emphasis on "Your Dudes" and "your own collection" - and having the face of 40k, a faction which is designed to be as accessible and open to consumer creativity as possible, be restrictive to 50% of the population? That doesn't feel like it's doing a very good job of what it's trying to be.
Yes, you're right that "non-representation" isn't always "exclusion" - except that, in the case of Space Marines, it very much is. And you can see other people claiming that this is *the point* of Space Marines, according to Sledgehammer, for example.
RaptorusRex wrote: Y’know, how come Aspect Warriors can have the monastic elements with both women and men, hmm?
Not well represented in the model range though. No aspects outside of Banshees have boob plate to denote a female. Some have argued that heavy aspect armor is enough to mask meager eldar bosoms so some of the Scorpions, Reapers, and Dragons could be considered to be female, but I think GW has made it clear that eldar females are denoted by boob plate as seen on the Guardians and latest Autarch.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: But that is a failing of the miniature line, not the lore. And most of those miniatures were sculpted decades ago.
It hasn't changed much and still isn't changing much. New Guardians have 4 of 10 sculpts as female. The old kit had 2. New Scorpions, new Reapers, new Dragons, and new Spiders have none. It seems a weird oversight given the heavy representation of female eldar in the video games (Taldeer, Macha, Kayleth, Elenwë).
Sledgehammer wrote:That's probably the best way of integrating "female space marines" without impacting the current culture, interpersonal dynamic, and call back to the monastic orders of old that make space marines what they are.
You mention "current culture" and "interpersonal dynamic", but you've STILL not explained how those are incapable of existing if women are present in them.
Why would women being part of the Space Marines change their "current culture" and "interpersonal dynamic" of barely human steroid infused hypnoconditioned child soldiers?
You keep making all these claims about what Space Marines are, but you're incapable of defining them! And then you have the gall to say "I don't need to prove that": actually, the burden is on you, the claimant, to defend those claims.
I'll repost those questions, just so everyone else can see what you're too afraid to answer:
- What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships?
- Where do queer people fit in with these definitions?
- How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium?
- If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women?
- What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men?
- Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
But I am really tired of people coming in and saying "Female space marines or bust, and if you disagree with me you're sexist".
And I'm really tired of your refusal to answer simple questions to elucidate your point.
Sledgehammer wrote: That's probably the best way of integrating "female space marines" without impacting the current culture, interpersonal dynamic, and call back to the monastic orders of old that make space marines what they are.
That's fair, I suppose. Adding women to a group modelled off the monastic orders of old would be like, say, making them genetically enhanced warriors in high tech armour who spit acid, absorb the knowledge of their enemies by eating their brains and put themselves into suspended animation at will... That would totally destroy my immersion in the faction.
The Teutonic order, and the broader catholic church, were famous for their gender inclusivity, you're 100% correct. Removing that inclusivity would completely destroy the theme of a faction based on that history and their broader hierarchy.
The Teutonic order, also known for their vampires, wolf riding vikings, greco-roman designs, worship of fire and machinery, stealth based warfare, African naming conventions, druids, Mongolian facial hair, and emo haircuts.
Newsflash: not all Space Marines are based on catholic iconography - in fact, it's a minority that are (Black Templars, Dark Angels). You know who IS based on Catholic iconography? The Sisters of Battle... who aren't men!
It's almost like something can be themed on elements of something, without having to copy every single aspect of it! For the last time, no matter how many times you pretend it is, not all Space Marines are based entirely on the Catholic Church!
People are tired of being brow beaten by sanctimonious arguments that continually bring their real world politics into a fantasy game.
Women existing isn't political. Women existing in the Ultra Customisable Beginner Friendly Little Timmy Faction shouldn't be political either.
Sledgehammer wrote: The Teutonic order, and the broader catholic church, were famous for their gender inclusivity, you're 100% correct. Removing that inclusivity would completely destroy the theme of a faction based on that history and their broader hierarchy.
Were they famous for their Vikings? Vampires? Werewolves? Mutants wreathed in otherworldly flames? Dressing up in vaguely roman style armour and ruling relatively benevolently while the rest of the galaxy went to pot?
I do know that half of the Teutonic Order famously went renegade and turned into freakish mutants who live in a portal to another dimension, but I wasn't so sure about those other things.
Well vikings absolutely did exist within the context of the catholic world. Cnute the great was famously Catholic as was Harald Hadrada. Many of the Varangian guard in Constantinople converted leading to the greater conversion of the Kievian Rus.
And did these Vikings also ride wolves into battle? Did they worship their native land spirits which granted them their strength? Because that doesn't sound very Catholic to me (also, not at all similar to the Teutonic Order you mentioned earlier).
Vampires are famously catholic in their themes.
hahahahahahahaha lol no
Part of my degree was literally on this matter, and you're horribly misinformed. Vampires are famously *sexual and transgressive* in their themes - either as a criticism of sexual liberation, or an endorsement of it. Vampires in Western literary canon (aka, the ones that GW are most influenced by) have more association with Victorian prudishness and xenophobia than they do with religion. The religious aspects are nearly always a later addition, mostly with religion being used as the element that vampires *transgress* against.
Stop making things up.
Vlad Tepesh himself is said to have sold his soul to the devil in an attempt to to gain immortality.
Vlad Tepes was a real man. "Selling his soul to the devil" isn't exclusive to Catholicism, and more importantly, is a later addition to the initial vampire mythos.
In fact Dracul means devil in Romanian and the cross is almost always associated with helping to ward off vampires.
The cross as an anti-vampire symbol is not present in the first stories about vampires, and is hardly the only thing which does ward them off in folklore - vampires aren't an exclusively Catholic myth.
Sledgehammer wrote:The Imperium is backwards and old fashioned and space marines help to emphasize that.
Except for all the women serving in the Imperial Guard, and the current Lord Castellan of Cadia being a woman, and multiple HLOT being women, and the Sisters of Silence being the left hand of the Emperor, and the Imperium being institutionally gender-blind.
The Space Marines are the ONLY Imperial institution which has no women, in fact. That doesn't really back up your claim that "the Imperium is backwards and old fashioned" when it comes to gender. Yes, the Imperium *is* backwards and fascistic and absurd, but in gender? No way.
Insectum7 wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Not suggesting that 40k is, but for the sake of your argument - do you think is it ethical or justifiable for a company to market their materials to an audience of eugenicists or flat earthers or misogynists? Or is there a limit on which an company should cater to certain audiences?
I tend towards the very permissive when it comes to expression or products.
Right - so you're fine with people actively catering to and enabling dangerous, genuinely hateful people who would happily commit crimes against someone on the basis of their sexuality, race, or gender?
There's a difference between "different views" and "I want to kill this person because they're a *insert slur here*". And apparently, you think it's okay to market toward those people.
Sorry, but I don't really think it's appropriate for me to continue a conversation with you, if you believe that's acceptable.
a_typical_hero wrote:For me it depends on how FSM would be introduced. A simple retcon à la Custodes gets a big, fat thumbs down. This is not a natural development of the story but rather a cheap (albeit easy) shortcut to a desired outcome. It would lessen my investment in the setting to see that long standing lore gets changed on a whim like that without the proper attention it would deserve.
Whereas on my end, I don't think it deserves any fanfare. It doesn't need it.
We didn't need any fanfare when Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons and Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans were introduced. We didn't need any fanfare when half-eldar chief astropaths were removed. We didn't need fanfare when Stormraven Gunships became usable by all Chapters.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In an ideal world, where 40k starts from scratch, and Space Marines aren't given anywhere near the same degree of media attention, where they aren't the default face of the game, where they have as much focus now as, say, the Votann have now - I would absolutely agree. It's why I've said that I don't have an issue with all-male factions (I think that Orks would be a genuinely fascinating exploration of masculine hegemony, and that if any faction should be the "male" faction, it's Orks!), but rather that the "all-male" faction currently is also the one that gets the most attention in all forms of media, and is widely considered the Starter Faction (and also has the widest range of play and aesthetic options presented).
However, I'm being realistic here - that's simply not going to happen any time soon.
Is there a big difference between starting 40k from scratch and introducing FSM right now?
Uh, yes? Because, well, not every faction in 40k is a Space Marine? Yes, of COURSE there'd be a massive difference! Whereas with women Space Marines, do you know what you need? A headswap sprue, and different pronouns when a new Codex is released.
We've seen how little effort it takes, from the Custodes. And they didn't even bother with a headswap sprue!
¹If FSM are added to lore, that allows people who like them to use them, AND it continues to allow people who don't like them to not use them. Nobody loses anything.
²If FSM continue to be excluded from the lore, people who want them can't use them.
³So one point of view excludes, where the other does not.
Emphasis mine.
¹ Again, depending on how it is done. And I'm beating this horse again and again, because we have the precedent of how female Custodes were introduced: If FSM just get retconned in, we further lose setting consistency and people's investment in it.
I wouldn't lose investment. Hell, if anything, I'd *gain* investment in 40k for it.
For what it's worth, I think how GW added in Custodes was the correct decision. We don't need a "HEY THIS RANDOM TECHPRIEST FOUND A WAY TO MAKE WOMEN CUSTODES NOW!" lore announcement. Honestly, GW statement of "there were always women Custodes" should've been elaborated on further: something more like "in some initial publications, we had previously used exclusively male language to refer to Custodes, and it was believed that only male Custodes existed. We feel that this is needlessly restrictive, and is an outdated part of the background of 40k. Like previous retcons in our history, we will be retconning the idea that Custodes have always been male, and going forwards, this means that women Custodes will have always been present in their history."
Friendly piece of advice: not the best assumption to make on a world-wide message board.
Why? What is the connection to it being world-wide? I think the phrase is perfectly fitting for someone who positions herself as a defender of inclusion in one post and dismissing the complete other half of the discussion as just being sexist rambling in order to strawman the own position towards victory in another.
Politely, if someone says that they don't want to be referred to in a certain way, and you want to be respectful of them, it's customary to apologise and not double down on it.
That is the respectful thing to do, and would be fitting with the rules of the forum here.
Non-representation is not the same as exclusion. I'm not excluded from Sailor Moon because Tuxedo Mask is a side character with a much lamer outfit than the MC. I'm not excluded from Tomb Raider because I can't play Larry Croft. Why is the joy of one person more valuable than that of another? Why is it okay for you to lessen my joy, but it is wrong for me to lessen yours?
The difference is that Sailor Moon and Tomb Raider aren't franchises which are based on you collecting an army of toy soldiers, and getting to customise them. When you play Tomb Raider, you are playing as Lara Croft, who is always Lara Croft. When you watch Sailor Moon, you are watching Sailor Moon.
When you are playing 40k, there is a very strong emphasis on "Your Dudes" and "your own collection" - and having the face of 40k, a faction which is designed to be as accessible and open to consumer creativity as possible, be restrictive to 50% of the population? That doesn't feel like it's doing a very good job of what it's trying to be.
Yes, you're right that "non-representation" isn't always "exclusion" - except that, in the case of Space Marines, it very much is. And you can see other people claiming that this is *the point* of Space Marines, according to Sledgehammer, for example.
Fundamentally what makes your opinion and desire for a faction to represent exactly what you want, when it is at the expense of something that I happen to like, more valid? Ultimately I don't need to tell you why I enjoy something the way it is, or why I feel that way. Your opinion isn't morally or ethically superior. I like space marines as they are and you do not. Your suggestions happen to be in direct contention with what I like and I have every right to argue against a position that I feel hurts my attachment to a franchise.
I really don't care about the same things you do, and I really don't want those things in something that I happen to enjoy. Especially when many of them exist within the setting already and can be expanded upon without being detractive. I'm a demographic that deserves to be pandered to as well and there is nothing wrong with that.
I daily work with people from literally any, every, and all shades and sexualities. That is no factor to me at all. However I do happen to like my exclusive brotherhood of reclusive space monks.
I mean, GW saying Space Marines can be *gasp* girls, doesn't change anything if you don't want girls in your army. All it does is let people who *do* want them in their army have more options to do so without being told they are doing their models wrong. Its kind of a win-win as its nothing lost at all for one side and something gained for the other.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: But that is a failing of the miniature line, not the lore. And most of those miniatures were sculpted decades ago.
It hasn't changed much and still isn't changing much. New Guardians have 4 of 10 sculpts as female. The old kit had 2. New Scorpions, new Reapers, new Dragons, and new Spiders have none. It seems a weird oversight given the heavy representation of female eldar in the video games (Taldeer, Macha, Kayleth, Elenwë).
Yeah, I agree. I was just looking some of the new aspect models they announced and wondering how hard it would be to convert a guardian chest piece on them. I'm not really a big fan of gendered armour, but at least eldar armour is rather form fitting so it makes some sense. But once it has been established that gendered armour exist in the faction, then the lack of the female type for the aspects makes it seem they're all male.
Sledgehammer wrote:Fundamentally what makes your opinion and desire for a faction to represent exactly what you want, when it is at the expense of something that I happen to like, more valid?
The fact I'm willing to actually discuss it, and you're not.
Ultimately I don't need to tell you why I enjoy something the way it is, or why I feel that way.
You're right, you don't. But if you're going to come in and start making all these (incorrect) claims, or start going on about how "Space Marines represent muh brutherhood", and then not explain what you're even referring to when making those claims, then you can't expect anyone to actually take anything you have to say seriously, and you may as well just not bother commenting.
Also, reposting the questions I *have* asked, just so everyone can see what you're still avoiding: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships? - Where do queer people fit in with these definitions? - How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium? - If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women? - What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men? - Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Your opinion isn't morally or ethically superior.
Agreed. But at least I'm actually discussing mine.
I like space marines as they are and you do not. Your suggestions happen to be in direct contention with what I like and I have every right to argue against a position that I feel hurts my attachment to a franchise.
Except you're not arguing. You're avoiding discussion, and running away from actually discussing what it even is that you like.
I really don't care about the same things you do, and I really don't want those things in something that I happen to enjoy. Especially when many of them exist within the setting already and can be expanded upon without being detractive. I'm a demographic that deserves to be pandered to as well and there is nothing wrong with that.
So tell me - why do you NEED women to not be in your media in order for you be pandered to? What is your demographic that requires women to be totally absent in it for you to feel pandered to? It's not even like you want representation: you ACTIVELY want other people not to be represented! I don't particularly enjoy Dark Angels, but you don't see me saying that they should be written out of the setting just because I don't like them.
Why does pandering to you mean that no-one else can have their slice of the pie? Adding women Astartes just means they're more flavours of pie going around - whereas you seem to believe that if another flavour exists, you can't enjoy your own slice. And I've invited you MULTIPLE TIMES to elaborate on this, and yet you refuse.
I can only assume from that that you aren't being wholly sincere about your perspective, and have an opinion that you're not willing to discuss, because it would make you look bad.
At the end of the day this is all made up nonsense that doesn't matter
So stop commenting, and save it for people who *are* willing to discuss it.
kurhanik wrote: I mean, GW saying Space Marines can be *gasp* girls, doesn't change anything if you don't want girls in your army. All it does is let people who *do* want them in their army have more options to do so without being told they are doing their models wrong. Its kind of a win-win as its nothing lost at all for one side and something gained for the other.
Again I've said it changes how I identify and interact with my army. Why does my connection to my army (for whatever reason that may be) need to change and why do your interests trump mine? I've told you that FMS detract from my interest and immersion and ya'll either don't want to accept that, or think that your interests somehow trump mine.
All I'm saying is that you can advocate for and create something that you can enjoy without needing to harm the way that I happen to enjoy something.
Sledgehammer wrote: [Again I've said it changes how I identify and interact with my army. Why does my connection to my army (for whatever reason that may be) need to change and why do your interests trump mine? I've told you that FMS detract from my interest and immersion and ya'll either don't want to accept that, or think that your interests somehow trump mine.
And you've then refused to elaborate when people ask for more details on that. You can't keep saying "I'm just sharing my opinion" when you're actively refusing to when people ask for it.
There's no "gotcha" to be had if you actually just answer the questions properly.
Sledgehammer wrote: All I'm saying is that you can advocate for and create something that you can enjoy without needing to harm the way that I happen to enjoy something.
Yes, you're absolutely right! Having women in Space Marines should not be harming the way you happen to enjoy your own Space Marines! The fact that it does is your problem, not anyone else's.
You have been invited to discuss in more depth about what part of Space Marine identity would hurt your enjoyment, but, for several pages now, you are refusing to discuss that. That is also on you.
So tell me - why do you NEED women to not be in your media in order for you be pandered to? It's not even like you want representation: you ACTIVELY want other people not to be represented! I don't particularly enjoy Dark Angels, but you don't see me saying that they should be written out of the setting just because I don't like them.
This is like protesting outside a well regarded burger joint because, after many, many years it’s decided to widen its market appeal by also offering meat alternative Burgers, and the option of a Gluten Free bun, so as to cater to as many dietary preferences/requirements as possible.
Nothing there is removing their famous burger from the menu. Or forcing you to go vegan and/or gluten free.
And if, in this scenario, seeing the next person tucking into a soy based burger drives you to apoplexy? That’s entirely on you.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Not suggesting that 40k is, but for the sake of your argument - do you think is it ethical or justifiable for a company to market their materials to an audience of eugenicists or flat earthers or misogynists? Or is there a limit on which an company should cater to certain audiences?
I tend towards the very permissive when it comes to expression or products.
Right - so you're fine with people actively catering to and enabling dangerous, genuinely hateful people who would happily commit crimes against someone on the basis of their sexuality, race, or gender?
There's a difference between "different views" and "I want to kill this person because they're a *insert slur here*". And apparently, you think it's okay to market toward those people.
Sorry, but I don't really think it's appropriate for me to continue a conversation with you, if you believe that's acceptable.
That's your choice. But in my view you're essentially making the "violence in video games causes violence in real life." argument, which I believe has been well disproven by this point. Innoculation of society against harmful ideologies is the answer, not book banning, Imo.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: But that is a failing of the miniature line, not the lore. And most of those miniatures were sculpted decades ago.
It hasn't changed much and still isn't changing much. New Guardians have 4 of 10 sculpts as female. The old kit had 2. New Scorpions, new Reapers, new Dragons, and new Spiders have none. It seems a weird oversight given the heavy representation of female eldar in the video games (Taldeer, Macha, Kayleth, Elenwë).
Interestingly, the old RT era box of metal Guardians was similar. It was a box of 20 and like 8 or 9 were female.
Sledgehammer wrote:Fundamentally what makes your opinion and desire for a faction to represent exactly what you want, when it is at the expense of something that I happen to like, more valid?
The fact I'm willing to actually discuss it, and you're not.
Ultimately I don't need to tell you why I enjoy something the way it is, or why I feel that way.
You're right, you don't. But if you're going to come in and start making all these (incorrect) claims, or start going on about how "Space Marines represent muh brutherhood", and then not explain what you're even referring to when making those claims, then you can't expect anyone to actually take anything you have to say seriously, and you may as well just not bother commenting.
Also, reposting the questions I *have* asked, just so everyone can see what you're still avoiding: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships? - Where do queer people fit in with these definitions? - How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium? - If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women? - What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men? - Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Your opinion isn't morally or ethically superior.
Agreed. But at least I'm actually discussing mine.
I like space marines as they are and you do not. Your suggestions happen to be in direct contention with what I like and I have every right to argue against a position that I feel hurts my attachment to a franchise.
Except you're not arguing. You're avoiding discussion, and running away from actually discussing what it even is that you like.
I really don't care about the same things you do, and I really don't want those things in something that I happen to enjoy. Especially when many of them exist within the setting already and can be expanded upon without being detractive. I'm a demographic that deserves to be pandered to as well and there is nothing wrong with that.
So tell me - why do you NEED women to not be in your media in order for you be pandered to? What is your demographic that requires women to be totally absent in it for you to feel pandered to? It's not even like you want representation: you ACTIVELY want other people not to be represented! I don't particularly enjoy Dark Angels, but you don't see me saying that they should be written out of the setting just because I don't like them.
Why does pandering to you mean that no-one else can have their slice of the pie? Adding women Astartes just means they're more flavours of pie going around - whereas you seem to believe that if another flavour exists, you can't enjoy your own slice. And I've invited you MULTIPLE TIMES to elaborate on this, and yet you refuse.
I can only assume from that that you aren't being wholly sincere about your perspective, and have an opinion that you're not willing to discuss, because it would make you look bad.
At the end of the day this is all made up nonsense that doesn't matter
So stop commenting, and save it for people who *are* willing to discuss it.
No, I happen to work 60 to 70 hour weeks and most people don't have the energy to post over 8,000 times over an 11 year period and debate this. That doesn't mean that that opinion doesn't exist or isn't valid. The vast majority of people simply do not want to engage with you or the subject matter due to the name calling and insinuations on their moral standing.
Wanting all male space marines is not to the exclusion of having women feel represented in the hobby or the setting.
kurhanik wrote: I mean, GW saying Space Marines can be *gasp* girls, doesn't change anything if you don't want girls in your army. All it does is let people who *do* want them in their army have more options to do so without being told they are doing their models wrong. Its kind of a win-win as its nothing lost at all for one side and something gained for the other.
Again I've said it changes how I identify and interact with my army. Why does my connection to my army (for whatever reason that may be) need to change and why do your interests trump mine? I've told you that FMS detract from my interest and immersion and ya'll either don't want to accept that, or think that your interests somehow trump mine.
All I'm saying is that you can advocate for and create something that you can enjoy without needing to harm the way that I happen to enjoy something.
When GW introduced plastic Death Guard in 8th they pretty much changed huge parts of their identity, characters and appearance. I had been collecting DG since 5th edition and was quite underwhelmed how they were presented in their first own Codex in 8th. Guess what, I even bought the new models but the fluff for my DG warband simply stayed the same. They didn’t suddenly embrace the sickness and tentacles and became silly laughing freaks like GWs variant did. So far no GW Agent has knocked on my door and the fluff leaves enough room for my interpretation of nurgle marines, even though the 9th edition codex didn’t change the picture that much (though it had much better gritty artworks, fitting what I like about DG).
So, GWs fluff changes don’t need to bother you. If you swallowed Primaris Marines already, FSM should be a much smaller problem.
kurhanik wrote: I mean, GW saying Space Marines can be *gasp* girls, doesn't change anything if you don't want girls in your army. All it does is let people who *do* want them in their army have more options to do so without being told they are doing their models wrong. Its kind of a win-win as its nothing lost at all for one side and something gained for the other.
Again I've said it changes how I identify and interact with my army. Why does my connection to my army (for whatever reason that may be) need to change and why do your interests trump mine? I've told you that FMS detract from my interest and immersion and ya'll either don't want to accept that, or think that your interests somehow trump mine.
All I'm saying is that you can advocate for and create something that you can enjoy without needing to harm the way that I happen to enjoy something.
When GW introduced plastic Death Guard in 8th they pretty much changed huge parts of their identity, characters and appearance. I had been collecting DG since 5th edition and was quite underwhelmed how they were presented in their first own Codex in 8th. Guess what, I even bought the new models but the fluff for my DG warband simply stayed the same. They didn’t suddenly embrace the sickness and tentacles and became silly laughing freaks like GWs variant did. So far no GW Agent has knocked on my door and the fluff leaves enough room for my interpretation of nurgle marines, even though the 9th edition codex didn’t change the picture that much (though it had much better gritty artworks, fitting what I like about DG). So, GWs fluff changes don’t need to bother you. If you swallowed Primaris Marines already, FSM should be a much smaller problem.
We disagree in principle, as well as in the volume of the impact that such a change makes.
You're making an argument that changes in lore don't matter because it doesn't change your personal interpretation of your army. That's fine in a solipsistic sense, but it sounds like with that same argument you are free to make your own interpretation of your army with whatever you want, including female space marines. I happen to believe the official lore matters as the perception and collective vision of a faction is what makes it "real".
So….you have an all-male Marine army. I’ll have a mixed sex Marine army, with the hypothetical background allowing for both, and even the next player fielding all-female Marines.
This affects you…..how?
I do this for a living. If I’m to uphold your argument here, you must first demonstrate an impact.
Repeatedly claiming an impact is not the same as demonstrating an impact. Believe, by now hundreds of my customers know that.
Sledgehammer wrote:[I happen to work 60 to 70 hour weeks and most people don't have the energy to post over 8,000 times over an 11 year period and debate this.
But you *are* willing to keep posting, completely bypassing certain questions and yet answering and responding to others, and then post even more defending why you "don't have time" to post a response?
If you're going to keep posting responses and rebuttals and other things, then you clearly have time to answer some questions (or admit that you don't actually have answers for them and undermine your argument).
You could've avoided all this pages ago, by just answering the questions.
The vast majority of people
Got a source for that? Or is this a nebulously convenient silent majority?
simply do not want to engage with you or the subject matter due to the name calling and insinuations on their moral standing.
Where have I name-called you? And you'll notice I've only questioned your moral standing *because you're actively refusing to answer certain questions*, which has been more than a little suspicious, as many users have highlighted.
Wanting all male space marines is not to the exclusion of having women feel represented in the hobby or the setting.
Except, for you, it *is* about representation, because you seem to think you can only be represented in a faction if women are excluded from it.
We've repeatedly said that having women Space Marines shouldn't affect your enjoyment of your own all-male collection. You, on the other hand, have argued that your enjoyment of Space Marines is predicated on women being excluded from their presentation. Why? I've asked you repeatedly, but you refuse to answer it.
See - right here, at the bottom: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships? - Where do queer people fit in with these definitions? - How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium? - If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women? - What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men? - Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Not suggesting that 40k is, but for the sake of your argument - do you think is it ethical or justifiable for a company to market their materials to an audience of eugenicists or flat earthers or misogynists? Or is there a limit on which an company should cater to certain audiences?
I tend towards the very permissive when it comes to expression or products.
Right - so you're fine with people actively catering to and enabling dangerous, genuinely hateful people who would happily commit crimes against someone on the basis of their sexuality, race, or gender?
There's a difference between "different views" and "I want to kill this person because they're a *insert slur here*". And apparently, you think it's okay to market toward those people.
Sorry, but I don't really think it's appropriate for me to continue a conversation with you, if you believe that's acceptable.
That's your choice. But in my view you're essentially making the "violence in video games causes violence in real life." argument, which I believe has been well disproven by this point. Innoculation of society against harmful ideologies is the answer, not book banning, Imo.
Wait wait wait wait a second . . . I just had another thought. . .
If you're so afraid of dangerous ideologies, you do know you're arguing for inclusion in an highly oppressive, facist dictatorship right? Right?
I'm 19 pages late to the discussion, so I'll just toss out the usual bullet points:
* Having the most visible, most supported flagship faction of the franchise be a boys-only club is unfortunate. Representation does matter. While I doubt it's turning away potential players in droves, it's still kind of a bummer.
* There's really no good reason for there to not be FSM. The in-universe reasons mostly amount to, "Because the Emperor thought they'd have cooties."
* That said, it *is* sort of awkward to update it now because we've had decades worth of content hammering home that there are no FSM, and the most natural place to finally change that would have been with the introduction of the primaris.
* You could probably still just roll out an update where Cawl goes, "Check it out, I doubled your recruitment pool." It certainly seems like that would be a better improvement to the marine making process than just turning marines into bigger targets that struggle to enter small spaces.
* I'm still more in favor of introducing FSM than against. Marines being a boys only club doesn't really add much to their appeal to me, and see the first bullet point about making your flagship a sausage fest being kind of unfortunate. There's probably no way for the rollout to not feel awkward.
* The worst thing about FSM is realizing how ugly a lot of people get when trying to come up with an excuse for not adding them.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Not suggesting that 40k is, but for the sake of your argument - do you think is it ethical or justifiable for a company to market their materials to an audience of eugenicists or flat earthers or misogynists? Or is there a limit on which an company should cater to certain audiences?
I tend towards the very permissive when it comes to expression or products.
Right - so you're fine with people actively catering to and enabling dangerous, genuinely hateful people who would happily commit crimes against someone on the basis of their sexuality, race, or gender?
There's a difference between "different views" and "I want to kill this person because they're a *insert slur here*". And apparently, you think it's okay to market toward those people.
Sorry, but I don't really think it's appropriate for me to continue a conversation with you, if you believe that's acceptable.
That's your choice. But in my view you're essentially making the "violence in video games causes violence in real life." argument, which I believe has been well disproven by this point. Innoculation of society against harmful ideologies is the answer, not book banning, Imo.
Wait wait wait wait a second . . . I just had another thought. . .
If you're so afraid of dangerous ideologies, you do know you're arguing for inclusion in an highly oppressive, facist dictatorship right? Right?
F***ing hilarious.
A highly oppressive, fascist dictatorship that, despite all its many flaws, isn't inherently sexist.
Maybe some of us have been looking at it wrong. The question we need to ask is: alleged technological limitations of the geneseed aside, what would the Imperium do?
I maintain that they'd be thrilled to double their recruiting pool.
So….you have an all-male Marine army. I’ll have a mixed sex Marine army, with the hypothetical background allowing for both, and even the next player fielding all-female Marines.
This affects you…..how?
I do this for a living. If I’m to uphold your argument here, you must first demonstrate an impact.
Repeatedly claiming an impact is not the same as demonstrating an impact. Believe, by now hundreds of my customers know that.
"2. Berkeley’s critique of materialism in the Principles and Dialogues
In his two great works of metaphysics, Berkeley defends idealism by attacking the materialist alternative. What exactly is the doctrine that he’s attacking? Readers should first note that “materialism” is here used to mean “the doctrine that material things exist”. This is in contrast with another use, more standard in contemporary discussions, according to which materialism is the doctrine that only material things exist. Berkeley contends that no material things exist, not just that some immaterial things exist. Thus, he attacks Cartesian and Lockean dualism, not just the considerably less popular (in Berkeley’s time) view, held by Hobbes, that only material things exist. But what exactly is a material thing? Interestingly, part of Berkeley’s attack on matter is to argue that this question cannot be satisfactorily answered by the materialists, that they cannot characterize their supposed material things. However, an answer that captures what exactly it is that Berkeley rejects is that material things are mind-independent things or substances. And a mind-independent thing is something whose existence is not dependent on thinking/perceiving things, and thus would exist whether or not any thinking things (minds) existed. Berkeley holds that there are no such mind-independent things, that, in the famous phrase, esse est percipi (aut percipere) — to be is to be perceived (or to perceive)."
Canon is the universal acknowledgement and implementation of lore as it exists in the 40k universe. To canonize something is to make it universally perceivable through the franchise thereby making it "real" and outside of the disconnected solipsism of headcanon.
When something becomes canon it becomes "real" in all of our collective consciousnesses, changing the universal perception of how something works. That perception being outside of simple headcanon (or solipsism) is how we and the world interact with the franchise and form our own internal perceptions. You can deny the canon of the setting all you want, but in this context you are denying what is "real". To canonize something is to tangibly change how we should interface with that thing, for better or worse.
Right now, as it exists, "reality" in 40k is that the space marines ARE all male and to suggest a change of that magnitude in the canon does change our own internal perceptions of that. We can always ignore canon, but when you do so you are engaging in solipsistic tendencies and "denying" "reality".
You are free to your own headcanon because it doesn't affect me. Advocating for canonicity does.
A highly oppressive and repressive super fascist regime which, inwardly, doesn’t demonstrate sexism, homophobia, transphobia or racism as we understand it.
It has “better” targets for society’s pettiness. Whilst it by no means justifies the extent of The Imperium’s persecution of its favourite Others? Those Others actually are an existential threat.
After all, it’s not a satanic panic when they are summoning daemons and opening literal portals to hell, or when the savage race is Orks, who absolutely well just kick the snot out of you because to an Ork, that’s just good fun, and so on and so forth.
Would you like to try a new argument?
Wyldhunt. There’s nothing in the background to suggest The Emperor didn’t want female super warriors. The evidence is to the contrary, given women weren’t barred from any other military service. Instead, it’s presented as a limitation of the underlying technology used in the development. The Emperor is male. The Primarchs are male, being derived from The Emperor’s genetics. The Astartes are a bodge job salvage operation from when the Primarchs were abducted, but also ultimately mini, inferior clones of The Emperor’s genetics, after a fashion.
So not wouldn’t have female Astartes, but couldn’t, based on that specific technology, and the time he had left before the Great Crusade had to get underway.
So….you have an all-male Marine army. I’ll have a mixed sex Marine army, with the hypothetical background allowing for both, and even the next player fielding all-female Marines.
This affects you…..how?
I do this for a living. If I’m to uphold your argument here, you must first demonstrate an impact.
Repeatedly claiming an impact is not the same as demonstrating an impact. Believe, by now hundreds of my customers know that.
2. Berkeley’s critique of materialism in the Principles and Dialogues In his two great works of metaphysics, Berkeley defends idealism by attacking the materialist alternative. What exactly is the doctrine that he’s attacking? Readers should first note that “materialism” is here used to mean “the doctrine that material things exist”. This is in contrast with another use, more standard in contemporary discussions, according to which materialism is the doctrine that only material things exist. Berkeley contends that no material things exist, not just that some immaterial things exist. Thus, he attacks Cartesian and Lockean dualism, not just the considerably less popular (in Berkeley’s time) view, held by Hobbes, that only material things exist. But what exactly is a material thing? Interestingly, part of Berkeley’s attack on matter is to argue that this question cannot be satisfactorily answered by the materialists, that they cannot characterize their supposed material things. However, an answer that captures what exactly it is that Berkeley rejects is that material things are mind-independent things or substances. And a mind-independent thing is something whose existence is not dependent on thinking/perceiving things, and thus would exist whether or not any thinking things (minds) existed. Berkeley holds that there are no such mind-independent things, that, in the famous phrase, esse est percipi (aut percipere) — to be is to be perceived (or to perceive).
Canon is the universal acknowledgement and implementation of lore as it exists in the 40k universe. To canonize something is to make it universally perceivable through the franchise thereby making it "real" and outside of the disconnected solipsism of headcanon.
When something becomes canon it becomes "real" in all of our collective consciousnesses changing the universal perception of how something works. That perception being outside of simple headcanon (or solipsism) is how we and the world interact with the franchise and form our own internal perceptions. You can deny the canon of the setting all you want, but in this context you are denying what is "real". To canonize something is to tangibly change how we should interface with that thing, for better or worse.
Right now, as it exists, "reality" in 40k is that the space marines ARE all male and to suggest a change of that magnitude in the canon does change our own internal perceptions of that. We can always ignore canon, but when you do so you are engaging in solipsistic tendencies and "denying" "reality".
You are free to your own headcanon because it doesn't affect me. Advocating for canonicity does.
[/spoiler]
Cobblers. And another non-answer, with unless I’m mistaken, a timbale des fruits of Appeal To Authority
Your army can still be a Sosigfest if that’s your preference. The models I choose to compile my army from has zero impact on you, or your enjoyment. A hypothetical change to the background allows those who’d like to do so, to field female Astartes. If you don’t want to? That’s cool. Just as I expect you to respect the choices and preferences of the next player in this scenario, so must your choice and preferences in this scenario be respected in turn.
But here? You’re presenting your choice and preference as the only one that matters, because you’re seeking to deny the next person a choice in the matter. And you’ve still not offered a convincing argument as to why that should be the case.
Please note I have, at no point, tried to put words in your mouth, or made claims about your motivations here. I just want you to tell us your reasons. Which so far, despite numerous requests and opportunities, not to mention rebuttals to your appeals to authority and “trust me, bro” statements, you’ve failed, possibly refused to do so.
A highly oppressive and repressive super fascist regime which, inwardly, doesn’t demonstrate sexism, homophobia, transphobia or racism as we understand it.
It has “better” targets for society’s pettiness. Whilst it by no means justifies the extent of The Imperium’s persecution of its favourite Others? Those Others actually are an existential threat.
After all, it’s not a satanic panic when they are summoning daemons and opening literal portals to hell, or when the savage race is Orks, who absolutely well just kick the snot out of you because to an Ork, that’s just good fun, and so on and so forth.
Would you like to try a new argument?
So you're saying sometimes hyper-militant oppression is justified? You mean fascism is ok if the circumstances call for it? Because that appears to be the inevitable ideological slippery slope Smudge is alluring to.
My argument here is about Smudges apparent suggestion that I'm not worth having a discourse with because I'm largely against banning books, media and other forms of expression. I invite you tp riview the context within which my previous post is in response to.
Against rapacious, unrelenting threats such as Orks and Tyranids? You really don’t have a choice. They literally cannot be successfully negotiated with.
Sure you can bribe an Ork, even an entire Warband/Fleet. But it’s still just a matter of time until they realise turning whatever guns and materiel you paid them off with on you would be (to them) really really funny.
Its intolerance of non-Ecclesiarchy religion is likewise not entirely unjustified. Because Gods do exist there, and they’re not to be trusted, trifled with or bargained with.
The extent the Imperium oppresses its own people? Not at all.
But, that’s the perversity of The Imperium. It’s not sexist. It’s not racist. It’s not homophobic. It’s not transphobic. It’s done away with some of modern society’s foibles and pettiness in the worst possible way - by treating everyone equally awfully.
And it’s all for naught. It fights the good fight, simply to….fight the good fight, and to live to fight another day. But between its own gross inefficiencies and just how numerous its foes are? It’s stuck in a constant cycle of war and despair.
The Imperium is also its own worst enemy.
The Interex was doing pretty well for themselves WITHOUT the horrific nature of the Imperium. Until they got conquered by the Imperium. There might be no other way at this point but there very much was another path. It’s just not available now.
RaptorusRex wrote: Y’know, how come Aspect Warriors can have the monastic elements with both women and men, hmm?
Because they're aliens & thus don't need to adhere to how humans do things.
Humans also have mixed gender monastic groups though.
Sure, here in the real world. In the fictional setting you're taking too seriously though? Maybe, maybe not. Hard to tell when the only real example is always SM related.
So we'll just have to wait for GW to write some more gak to find out (unless I've missed something - I admit that I don't read much BL stuff).
JNAProductions wrote: The Imperium is also its own worst enemy.
The Interex was doing pretty well for themselves WITHOUT the horrific nature of the Imperium. Until they got conquered by the Imperium. There might be no other way at this point but there very much was another path. It’s just not available now.
I’d agree with that. But, to be fair to that Imperium? The Imperium of today is not what The Emperor intended. The Great Crusade was a mammoth undertaking, but horrific as the process was, it was meant to be a finite one. Unite humanity, “pacify” the Galaxy, allowing future generations to live in sustained peace, with all the perks the sharing of galactic resources brings.
A highly oppressive and repressive super fascist regime which, inwardly, doesn’t demonstrate sexism, homophobia, transphobia or racism as we understand it.
It has “better” targets for society’s pettiness. Whilst it by no means justifies the extent of The Imperium’s persecution of its favourite Others? Those Others actually are an existential threat.
After all, it’s not a satanic panic when they are summoning daemons and opening literal portals to hell, or when the savage race is Orks, who absolutely well just kick the snot out of you because to an Ork, that’s just good fun, and so on and so forth.
Would you like to try a new argument?
Wyldhunt. There’s nothing in the background to suggest The Emperor didn’t want female super warriors. The evidence is to the contrary, given women weren’t barred from any other military service. Instead, it’s presented as a limitation of the underlying technology used in the development. The Emperor is male. The Primarchs are male, being derived from The Emperor’s genetics. The Astartes are a bodge job salvage operation from when the Primarchs were abducted, but also ultimately mini, inferior clones of The Emperor’s genetics, after a fashion.
So not wouldn’t have female Astartes, but couldn’t, based on that specific technology, and the time he had left before the Great Crusade had to get underway.
So….you have an all-male Marine army. I’ll have a mixed sex Marine army, with the hypothetical background allowing for both, and even the next player fielding all-female Marines.
This affects you…..how?
I do this for a living. If I’m to uphold your argument here, you must first demonstrate an impact.
Repeatedly claiming an impact is not the same as demonstrating an impact. Believe, by now hundreds of my customers know that.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/ 2. Berkeley’s critique of materialism in the Principles and Dialogues
In his two great works of metaphysics, Berkeley defends idealism by attacking the materialist alternative. What exactly is the doctrine that he’s attacking? Readers should first note that “materialism” is here used to mean “the doctrine that material things exist”. This is in contrast with another use, more standard in contemporary discussions, according to which materialism is the doctrine that only material things exist. Berkeley contends that no material things exist, not just that some immaterial things exist. Thus, he attacks Cartesian and Lockean dualism, not just the considerably less popular (in Berkeley’s time) view, held by Hobbes, that only material things exist. But what exactly is a material thing? Interestingly, part of Berkeley’s attack on matter is to argue that this question cannot be satisfactorily answered by the materialists, that they cannot characterize their supposed material things. However, an answer that captures what exactly it is that Berkeley rejects is that material things are mind-independent things or substances. And a mind-independent thing is something whose existence is not dependent on thinking/perceiving things, and thus would exist whether or not any thinking things (minds) existed. Berkeley holds that there are no such mind-independent things, that, in the famous phrase, esse est percipi (aut percipere) — to be is to be perceived (or to perceive).
Canon is the universal acknowledgement and implementation of lore as it exists in the 40k universe. To canonize something is to make it universally perceivable through the franchise thereby making it "real" and outside of the disconnected solipsism of headcanon.
When something becomes canon it becomes "real" in all of our collective consciousnesses changing the universal perception of how something works. That perception being outside of simple headcanon (or solipsism) is how we and the world interact with the franchise and form our own internal perceptions. You can deny the canon of the setting all you want, but in this context you are denying what is "real". To canonize something is to tangibly change how we should interface with that thing, for better or worse.
Right now, as it exists, "reality" in 40k is that the space marines ARE all male and to suggest a change of that magnitude in the canon does change our own internal perceptions of that. We can always ignore canon, but when you do so you are engaging in solipsistic tendencies and "denying" "reality".
You are free to your own headcanon because it doesn't affect me. Advocating for canonicity does.
Cobblers. And another non-answer, with unless I’m mistaken, a timbale des fruits of Appeal To Authority
Your army can still be a Sosigfest if that’s your preference. The models I choose to compile my army from has zero impact on you, or your enjoyment. A hypothetical change to the background allows those who’d like to do so, to field female Astartes. If you don’t want to? That’s cool. Just as I expect you to respect the choices and preferences of the next player in this scenario, so must your choice and preferences in this scenario be respected in turn.
But here? You’re presenting your choice and preference as the only one that matters, because you’re seeking to deny the next person a choice in the matter. And you’ve still not offered a convincing argument as to why that should be the case.
Please note I have, at no point, tried to put words in your mouth, or made claims about your motivations here. I just want you to tell us your reasons. Which so far, despite numerous requests and opportunities, not to mention rebuttals to your appeals to authority and “trust me, bro” statements, you’ve failed, possibly refused to do so.
Epistemologically our understanding of anything is not tied to what something is in itself, but rather in how something is different in relation to anything else. For if something was the same in all ways we could not even distinguish between the two. The very nature of those things would be unknowable. Consequently to know what something is, is to know what something is not. What this means is that the more unique something is, the more we can readily discern what that thing is.
The substance of what something is, is not existent wholly within itself, or detached from the world around it. All things exist and only become knowable by and within their relation to something else. A change in the outside world changes how one interfaces with it, as well as the very mechanisms by which something is defined, and knowable. The very essence of what something is paradoxically can change due to no change in its own composition, but rather in something that exists outside of itself.
To change anything is to change how everything acts and exists in relationship to another.
A space marine exists in relation to their chapter, a chapter in relation to the space marines as a monolith, and the space marines in relation to the Imperium as a whole.
Even if it's not my chapter, or my marines, it changes them because they exist within a social, political, religious, and military structure that defines them.
I have no interest in discussing the matter with Insectum, given that they have admitted (by tacit agreement) that they are"fine with people actively catering to and enabling dangerous, genuinely hateful people who would happily commit crimes against someone on the basis of their sexuality, race, or gender".
That's not "ooh video games cause violence" or "i want to ban book that disagree with me" - that's "I'm ambivalent to people hatecriming you, and I believe that I shouldn't criticise people who actively encourage and reward violence against others". That is what I stated, and by choosing not to read that, and interpret it as "video games bad", Insectum is tacitly agreeing with it.
They had every opportunity to refute that statement, and even just to say "no, I think that supporting people who actively want to commit crimes against people because of their sex/race/gender is bad" - but apparently, it's wrong to say that we *shouldn't* tolerate those who are actively trying to hatecrime people.
And that is why I'm not willing to discuss further with them.
"2. Berkeley’s critique of materialism in the Principles and Dialogues In his two great works of metaphysics, Berkeley defends idealism by attacking the materialist alternative. What exactly is the doctrine that he’s attacking? Readers should first note that “materialism” is here used to mean “the doctrine that material things exist”. This is in contrast with another use, more standard in contemporary discussions, according to which materialism is the doctrine that only material things exist. Berkeley contends that no material things exist, not just that some immaterial things exist. Thus, he attacks Cartesian and Lockean dualism, not just the considerably less popular (in Berkeley’s time) view, held by Hobbes, that only material things exist. But what exactly is a material thing? Interestingly, part of Berkeley’s attack on matter is to argue that this question cannot be satisfactorily answered by the materialists, that they cannot characterize their supposed material things. However, an answer that captures what exactly it is that Berkeley rejects is that material things are mind-independent things or substances. And a mind-independent thing is something whose existence is not dependent on thinking/perceiving things, and thus would exist whether or not any thinking things (minds) existed. Berkeley holds that there are no such mind-independent things, that, in the famous phrase, esse est percipi (aut percipere) — to be is to be perceived (or to perceive)."
Canon is the universal acknowledgement and implementation of lore as it exists in the 40k universe. To canonize something is to make it universally perceivable through the franchise thereby making it "real" and outside of the disconnected solipsism of headcanon.
When something becomes canon it becomes "real" in all of our collective consciousnesses, changing the universal perception of how something works. That perception being outside of simple headcanon (or solipsism) is how we and the world interact with the franchise and form our own internal perceptions. You can deny the canon of the setting all you want, but in this context you are denying what is "real". To canonize something is to tangibly change how we should interface with that thing, for better or worse.
Right now, as it exists, "reality" in 40k is that the space marines ARE all male and to suggest a change of that magnitude in the canon does change our own internal perceptions of that. We can always ignore canon, but when you do so you are engaging in solipsistic tendencies and "denying" "reality".
You are free to your own headcanon because it doesn't affect me. Advocating for canonicity does.
That's a lot of words for a lot of nothing. Did you take time out of your 60-70 hour day to actually read through that and post it, instead of answering the actual question you were asked?
Because it seems that time you complained about not having is being put to use on something even less productive.
RaptorusRex wrote: Y’know, how come Aspect Warriors can have the monastic elements with both women and men, hmm?
Because they're aliens & thus don't need to adhere to how humans do things.
Humans also have mixed gender monastic groups though.
Sure, here in the real world.
Pardon, but you made the claim that humans, in the real world, didn't have mixed monastic orders, and so it had no bearing on if the aliens also had them?
So, it's "oh, but that's the real world" when it's convenient?
I knew I should’ve added some French Dressing to my groceries. Word Salad goes so much better with French Dressing, even if it does add a lot of calories.
The vaunted social, political, religious and military structure you’re wibbling about are all fictional. You do grasp that, yeah?
And so, I ask again (and like a cross between Jeremy Paxman and Steve Rogers, I can ask this all day), how does the next person choosing to include female Astartes, whether or not there’s been a hypothetical change to the background, impact you in any way, shape or form?
Sledgehammer wrote: To change anything is to change how everything acts and exists in relationship to another.
A space marine exists in relation to their chapter, a chapter in relation to the space marines as a monolith, and the space marines in relation to the Imperium as a whole.
Even if it's not my chapter, or my marines, it changes them because they exist within a social, political, religious, and military structure that defines them.
So, it would undermine the Space Marines if the wider Imperium was gender-neutral, right?
Buddy, do I have news for you.
And also some questions:
- What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships?
- Where do queer people fit in with these definitions?
- How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium?
- If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women?
- What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men?
- Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Sledgehammer wrote: To change anything is to change how everything acts and exists in relationship to another.
A space marine exists in relation to their chapter, a chapter in relation to the space marines as a monolith, and the space marines in relation to the Imperium as a whole.
Even if it's not my chapter, or my marines, it changes them because they exist within a social, political, religious, and military structure that defines them.
So, it would undermine the Space Marines if the wider Imperium was gender-neutral, right?
Buddy, do I have news for you.
And also some questions:
- What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships?
- Where do queer people fit in with these definitions?
- How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium?
- If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women?
- What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men?
- Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Not the wider imperium, but space marines as a whole, even if its not my chapter? Yes, because it changes what it means to be a space marine, and not an imperial citizen.
At this point we can agree to disagree because it really doesn't matter what I say. My opinion is irrelevent to you and the combative nature exists because it lies in direct opposition to your goals. Fundamentally you think female space marines are a great addition. I think they detract from the established lore, themes and identity of not only space marines, but the setting as a whole.
You and I are both free to make up our own headcanon as we've both pointed out, but as I've illustrated that will never be satisfactory for either of us.
Circling back to the Eldar, did they have female Dire Avengers or did I convert mine from guardians? I genuinely don’t remember. As for the rest, they should include more women for sure. Another oversight by GW.
Sledgehammer wrote: To change anything is to change how everything acts and exists in relationship to another.
A space marine exists in relation to their chapter, a chapter in relation to the space marines as a monolith, and the space marines in relation to the Imperium as a whole.
Even if it's not my chapter, or my marines, it changes them because they exist within a social, political, religious, and military structure that defines them.
So, it would undermine the Space Marines if the wider Imperium was gender-neutral, right?
Buddy, do I have news for you.
And also some questions:
- What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships?
- Where do queer people fit in with these definitions?
- How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium?
- If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women?
- What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men?
- Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Not the wider imperium, but space marines as a whole, even if its not my chapter? Yes.
How? Why?
And, given that babble you just posted, about how "everything is linked and reflects on itself within a social/political/religious/military structure", why is it okay if the wider Imperium is gender-blind? Surely, if you believe that "a space marine exists in relation to their chapter, a chapter in relation to the space marines as a monolith, and the space marines in relation to the Imperium as a whole", then the Imperium being gender-blind would reflect upon the Space Marines within the Imperium?
Pretty selective behaviour you're showing there. Care to explain?
Sprue pic doesn’t seem to include boob armour. But the background has always been the Eldar not drawing any particular distinction between the sexes.
Howling Banshees are a female Aspect of course, but even there males can join it. Whether that makes them temporarily trans (such as when they’re wearing their war mask, which is literal and metaphorical) I’m not sure, and may be a matter of personal interpretation.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Whereas on my end, I don't think it deserves any fanfare. It doesn't need it.
We didn't need any fanfare when Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons and Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans were introduced. We didn't need any fanfare when half-eldar chief astropaths were removed. We didn't need fanfare when Stormraven Gunships became usable by all Chapters.
Can't even say "agree to disagree" in good conscious here. The changes from Rogue Trader to 2nd edition or GW announcing a new toy for Marines that was not mentioned before is not on the same level as something that actively contradicts the lore that came before it, not even close.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Uh, yes? Because, well, not every faction in 40k is a Space Marine? Yes, of COURSE there'd be a massive difference! Whereas with women Space Marines, do you know what you need? A headswap sprue, and different pronouns when a new Codex is released.
We've seen how little effort it takes, from the Custodes. And they didn't even bother with a headswap sprue!
Hm, maybe I expressed myself incorrectly? Wether we start at 0 or at the current point, all the stories, models and other things that are needed to add female representation to the game need to be made anyway, no? A single line in the codex' lore section saying "how SM are made by initiating young boys & girls" and one sprue is a bit weak, when 99.999999999% of the existing material for the faction does not acknowledge the existence of the change at all and might even contradict it, if it contains an older version of the creation process.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: For what it's worth, I think how GW added in Custodes was the correct decision. We don't need a "HEY THIS RANDOM TECHPRIEST FOUND A WAY TO MAKE WOMEN CUSTODES NOW!" lore announcement. Honestly, GW statement of "there were always women Custodes" should've been elaborated on further: something more like "in some initial publications, we had previously used exclusively male language to refer to Custodes, and it was believed that only male Custodes existed. We feel that this is needlessly restrictive, and is an outdated part of the background of 40k. Like previous retcons in our history, we will be retconning the idea that Custodes have always been male, and going forwards, this means that women Custodes will have always been present in their history."
Are you serious here? Just casually using a female pronoun in a random story and then trying to gaslight fans on social media that female Custodes always existed, when people could and did quote several instances from past publications that explicitly said they don't is a good way of handling things for you? You even say GW should have elaborated it further. Something in which you put more thought into it than anybody responsible for the Facebook and Twitter handle did. This is exactly the kind of "fanfare" that is needed when you do a change like this. Tact instead of a sledgehammer.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Politely, if someone says that they don't want to be referred to in a certain way, and you want to be respectful of them, it's customary to apologise and not double down on it.
That is the respectful thing to do, and would be fitting with the rules of the forum here.
What am I supposed to apologise for? It is a common, harmless meme phrase and I even went out of my way to adapt it to the stated pronouns of the user I'm engaging with. If you want to continue this part of the discussion, feel free to PM me.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The difference is that Sailor Moon and Tomb Raider aren't franchises which are based on you collecting an army of toy soldiers, and getting to customise them. When you play Tomb Raider, you are playing as Lara Croft, who is always Lara Croft. When you watch Sailor Moon, you are watching Sailor Moon.
When you are playing 40k, there is a very strong emphasis on "Your Dudes" and "your own collection" - and having the face of 40k, a faction which is designed to be as accessible and open to consumer creativity as possible, be restrictive to 50% of the population? That doesn't feel like it's doing a very good job of what it's trying to be.
Yes, you're right that "non-representation" isn't always "exclusion" - except that, in the case of Space Marines, it very much is. And you can see other people claiming that this is *the point* of Space Marines, according to Sledgehammer, for example.
"When you play Tyranids, you play as faceless bugs. When you play Sisters, you play a nuns with guns. When you play Space Marines, you play roided up Doom guys." You can still customise your guys. You can kitbash them, paint them how you want, you can put female heads on them. Nobody is stopping 50% from the population of doing that.
But anyway, we are circling around the same arguments again and again. I respectfully agree to disagree with everbody I engaged with during the discussion. Some point of views were very interesting to read, even if I could not be convinced by them in the end.
Sledgehammer wrote: To change anything is to change how everything acts and exists in relationship to another.
A space marine exists in relation to their chapter, a chapter in relation to the space marines as a monolith, and the space marines in relation to the Imperium as a whole.
Even if it's not my chapter, or my marines, it changes them because they exist within a social, political, religious, and military structure that defines them.
So, it would undermine the Space Marines if the wider Imperium was gender-neutral, right?
Buddy, do I have news for you.
And also some questions:
- What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships?
- Where do queer people fit in with these definitions?
- How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium?
- If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women?
- What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men?
- Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Not the wider imperium, but space marines as a whole, even if its not my chapter? Yes.
How? Why?
And, given that babble you just posted, about how "everything is linked and reflects on itself within a social/political/religious/military structure", why is it okay if the wider Imperium is gender-blind? Surely, if you believe that "a space marine exists in relation to their chapter, a chapter in relation to the space marines as a monolith, and the space marines in relation to the Imperium as a whole", then the Imperium being gender-blind would reflect upon the Space Marines within the Imperium?
Pretty selective behaviour you're showing there. Care to explain?
Because you are changing the nature of what it means to be a space marine and not an Imperial citizen? It's pretty self evident. Hell you're asking for the change! If the change was so trivial you wouldn't be asking for it.
It's such a massive change we've been arguing for the last three days about it.
The nature of being a Space Marine is to be taken from your family, ideally pre-puberty, subjected to trials very likely to kill you, stuffed full of all sorts of fun new organs, the process of which can kill you, your free will stripped away by multiple forms of indoctrination including Space Magic, and then to eventually die, ideally gloriously, in battle.
I find the argument about the Imperium's supposed sexist nature to be very cherry picking.
Because I've seen plenty of people try to tell me that it's ok marines are all male because the rest of the imperium's factions aren't sexist and recruit women, so it's ok because you can have female guardsmen or mechanicum.
So I'd like to know what it actually is - is the imperium an equal opportunity recruiter or not?
Because apart from the legalease prevention of men under arms for the ecclesiarchy and the 'organs don't work because girl' argument for marines, there's no specific sexist recruitment lauded, decried or even mentioned in the imperium's various factions.
And the very fact that the organs are supposed to prevent girls being marines is seemingly the ONLY reason there are no female marines. At no point has any background had any one in the imperium or marine chapters (afaik) voice the opinion that they're glad girls can't be marines, or that they don't understand why the guard recruits women or whatever.
From what I can see, the fact that women can't be marines is completely conflated with 'the imperium is inherently sexist', despite whole order of female only soldiers, equal opportunity guard recruitment and so on.
That is not to say that sexism doesn't exist amongst people or cultures within 40k, but there is a distinct lack of voiced or structural sexism within the imperium, administratum or departmento munitorum.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Whereas on my end, I don't think it deserves any fanfare. It doesn't need it.
We didn't need any fanfare when Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons and Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans were introduced. We didn't need any fanfare when half-eldar chief astropaths were removed. We didn't need fanfare when Stormraven Gunships became usable by all Chapters.
Can't even say "agree to disagree" in good conscious here. The changes from Rogue Trader to 2nd edition or GW announcing a new toy for Marines that was not mentioned before is not on the same level as something that actively contradicts the lore that came before it, not even close.
Previous lore indicated that Stormravens were *exclusively* used by Grey Knights and Blood Angels (and successors). Previous lore indicated that the Imperium was fine with using half-eldar astropaths. Previous lore has stated so many things, and so many things have been retconned, changed, and outright deleted. This is no different.
Sorry, but I'm still going to disagree on that.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Uh, yes? Because, well, not every faction in 40k is a Space Marine? Yes, of COURSE there'd be a massive difference! Whereas with women Space Marines, do you know what you need? A headswap sprue, and different pronouns when a new Codex is released.
We've seen how little effort it takes, from the Custodes. And they didn't even bother with a headswap sprue!
Hm, maybe I expressed myself incorrectly? Wether we start at 0 or at the current point, all the stories, models and other things that are needed to add female representation to the game need to be made anyway, no? A single line in the codex' lore section saying "how SM are made by initiating young boys & girls" and one sprue is a bit weak, when 99.999999999% of the existing material for the faction does not acknowledge the existence of the change at all and might even contradict it, if it contains an older version of the creation process.
As I later say, I wholeheartedly believe that the single line and a new sprue is more than enough to get the ball rolling. Things don't have to change overnight, but it needs to start somewhere, and it doesn't even require editing or deleting or banning previous material that disagrees. Ian Watson's Space Marine can still be read, even if a lot of it is no longer "canon". Dead Men Walking is not fully compliant with how Necrons are now portrayed as, but it's still able to be read, even if it's not fully "accurate" any more.
If GW were to say "yeah, we're changing it so that Space Marines are now gender-neutral, please understand that all previous works are products of their time", I would have no issue there.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: For what it's worth, I think how GW added in Custodes was the correct decision. We don't need a "HEY THIS RANDOM TECHPRIEST FOUND A WAY TO MAKE WOMEN CUSTODES NOW!" lore announcement. Honestly, GW statement of "there were always women Custodes" should've been elaborated on further: something more like "in some initial publications, we had previously used exclusively male language to refer to Custodes, and it was believed that only male Custodes existed. We feel that this is needlessly restrictive, and is an outdated part of the background of 40k. Like previous retcons in our history, we will be retconning the idea that Custodes have always been male, and going forwards, this means that women Custodes will have always been present in their history."
Are you serious here? Just casually using a female pronoun in a random story and then trying to gaslight fans on social media that female Custodes always existed, when people could and did quote several instances from past publications that explicitly said they don't is a good way of handling things for you? You even say GW should have elaborated it further. Something in which you put more thought into it than anybody responsible for the Facebook and Twitter handle did. This is exactly the kind of "fanfare" that is needed when you do a change like this. Tact instead of a sledgehammer.
Yes, I am being serious. I don't believe that GW was trying to "gaslight" fans: I believe that they were attempting to say "we don't care what previous publications have said, for all intents and purposes going forwards, there have always been female custodes".
Did they need to put those extra words in? Maybe. I personally didn't care either way, I understood what I believe they were trying to say. Personally, I don't believe fanfare was needed.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Politely, if someone says that they don't want to be referred to in a certain way, and you want to be respectful of them, it's customary to apologise and not double down on it.
That is the respectful thing to do, and would be fitting with the rules of the forum here.
What am I supposed to apologise for? It is a common, harmless meme phrase and I even went out of my way to adapt it to the stated pronouns of the user I'm engaging with. If you want to continue this part of the discussion, feel free to PM me.
BorderCountess can continue this if she wishes. I'm just saying, if someone said that a meme I'd used to describe them was not okay, then I would apologise and rescind that statement, if I genuinely cared about respecting them.
That's all I have to add.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The difference is that Sailor Moon and Tomb Raider aren't franchises which are based on you collecting an army of toy soldiers, and getting to customise them. When you play Tomb Raider, you are playing as Lara Croft, who is always Lara Croft. When you watch Sailor Moon, you are watching Sailor Moon.
When you are playing 40k, there is a very strong emphasis on "Your Dudes" and "your own collection" - and having the face of 40k, a faction which is designed to be as accessible and open to consumer creativity as possible, be restrictive to 50% of the population? That doesn't feel like it's doing a very good job of what it's trying to be.
Yes, you're right that "non-representation" isn't always "exclusion" - except that, in the case of Space Marines, it very much is. And you can see other people claiming that this is *the point* of Space Marines, according to Sledgehammer, for example.
"When you play Tyranids, you play as faceless bugs. When you play Sisters, you play a nuns with guns. When you play Space Marines, you play roided up Doom guys." You can still customise your guys. You can kitbash them, paint them how you want, you can put female heads on them. Nobody is stopping 50% from the population of doing that.
Right, but then we hit the same block of "but WHY are the roided up Doom guys all guys?" That's the crux of the question I'm asking, and it's that question which gets at the mater of what concerns me: not "why should we change it", but rather "why must this be the way it is?"
But anyway, we are circling around the same arguments again and again. I respectfully agree to disagree with everbody I engaged with during the discussion. Some point of views were very interesting to read, even if I could not be convinced by them in the end.
I am, at least, curious and interested that you found some views interesting to read.
Sledgehammer wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Why is it okay if the wider Imperium is gender-blind? Surely, if you believe that "a space marine exists in relation to their chapter, a chapter in relation to the space marines as a monolith, and the space marines in relation to the Imperium as a whole", then the Imperium being gender-blind would reflect upon the Space Marines within the Imperium?
Pretty selective behaviour you're showing there. Care to explain?
Because you are changing the nature of what it means to be a space marine?
And I've repeatedly asked you to clarify what that is, and what that means, because we do not agree on what it means to be a Space Marine. You are presenting it as some kind of objective fact, and I am asking you to elaborate and explain that, because it is *not* an objective fact.
So, for the umpteenth time, why aren't you willing to discuss those questions which get into the topic of "what is the nature of what it means to be a Space Marine"? You believe it is Brotherhood and "men being men". I asked you to define Brotherhood to satisfactory, mutually exclusive criteria. I asked you to explain what "men being men" behaviour Space Marines actually do, that isn't just "being a man". You have not done so. So how am I supposed to understand what you're trying to defend?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sledgehammer wrote:It's such a massive change we've been arguing for the last three days about it.
Actually, it's been three days of you not arguing about it, because you've not answered these:
- What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships?
- Where do queer people fit in with these definitions?
- How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium?
- If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women?
- What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men?
- Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The nature of being a Space Marine is to be taken from your family, ideally pre-puberty, subjected to trials very likely to kill you, stuffed full of all sorts of fun new organs, the process of which can kill you, your free will stripped away by multiple forms of indoctrination including Space Magic, and then to eventually die, ideally gloriously, in battle.
They shall be my finest warriors, these men who give of themselves to me. Like clay I shall mould them, and in the furnace of war forge them. They will be of iron will and steely muscle. In great armour shall I clad them and with the mightiest guns will they be armed. They will be untouched by plague or disease, no sickness will blight them. They will have tactics, strategies and machines so that no foe can best them in battle. They are my bulwark against the Terror. They are the Defenders of Humanity. They are my Space Marines and they shall know no fear." The Emperor of Mankind.
The emperor himself refers to them as men. All of the Primarchs were men and they call all of the space marines their sons. Space marines refer to each other as brothers. The chapter structure itself is a call back to religious militant orders of the past along with the constant crusading and gender exclusivity (not that the imperium as a whole is about gender exclusivity, but that monastic military orders were gender exclusive)
Space Marines appeal to masculine traits and ideals and its one reason why so many men play them and are interested in warhammer. Men can like a thing and have something made for them.
I've given you reasons why men, or hell even women, might not like the inclusion of female space marines. Go ahead and increase female representation it's needed actually, however you don't need to do that by ham fisting in female space marines. Other female characters and factions are NOT lesser.
Eldar aspect armour is like a pantomime outfit. Dire Avengers can be women, Banshees can be men, the Avatar is formed from the young 'king' explicitly regardless of sex because they play the character of Eldanesh.
It is trans in the non-meme sense of 'I identify as an attack helicopter'. They become the mask.
But I suppose in the spirit of this thread we could demand GW change the lore, it likely originated to justify the limited model range anyway.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: But that is a failing of the miniature line, not the lore. And most of those miniatures were sculpted decades ago.
It hasn't changed much and still isn't changing much. New Guardians have 4 of 10 sculpts as female. The old kit had 2. New Scorpions, new Reapers, new Dragons, and new Spiders have none. It seems a weird oversight given the heavy representation of female eldar in the video games (Taldeer, Macha, Kayleth, Elenwë).
As much as boobplate is dumb, Gw have said that the exarch head for the banshees is male but he still wears boobplate. Which if correct means that part of wearing the war mask is taking on the aspect in its entirety; so arguably, that means any aspect warrior could be male or female and the aspect's tradition determines whether it has boobplate or not.
Regardless of the model though, its been part of eldar lore since the beginning that all members of the craftworld join any aspects or paths. The banshees stick out only because they're a feminine aspect for a male war god. Which seems to be ignored quite a lot. The eldar god of war is male, but he has at least one explicitly female aspect. It doesn't change who can join what aspect, but it stands out as a thematic way to show female aspect warriors with a female aspect.
It also shows the somewhat androgynous nature of the eldar in that even their wargod isn't roid fuelled masculinity but encompasses feminine aspects as well.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I have no interest in discussing the matter with Insectum, given that they have admitted (by tacit agreement) that they are"fine with people actively catering to and enabling dangerous, genuinely hateful people who would happily commit crimes against someone on the basis of their sexuality, race, or gender".
That's not "ooh video games cause violence" or "i want to ban book that disagree with me" - that's "I'm ambivalent to people hatecriming you, and I believe that I shouldn't criticise people who actively encourage and reward violence against others". That is what I stated, and by choosing not to read that, and interpret it as "video games bad", Insectum is tacitly agreeing with it.
They had every opportunity to refute that statement, and even just to say "no, I think that supporting people who actively want to commit crimes against people because of their sex/race/gender is bad" - but apparently, it's wrong to say that we *shouldn't* tolerate those who are actively trying to hatecrime people.
And that is why I'm not willing to discuss further with them.
Expression of an idea is quite different than taking action on an idea, and I think rational people will agree. But I look forward to hearing about your attempts to ban the bible or the quran (I hear they've got some pretty spicy passages), or your attempts to ban hip hop that features mysogynistic lyrics.
I think you're going to have to make peace with the fact that freedom of expression, religion and association is just messy.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The nature of being a Space Marine is to be taken from your family, ideally pre-puberty, subjected to trials very likely to kill you, stuffed full of all sorts of fun new organs, the process of which can kill you, your free will stripped away by multiple forms of indoctrination including Space Magic, and then to eventually die, ideally gloriously, in battle.
They shall be my finest warriors, these men who give of themselves to me. Like clay I shall mould them, and in the furnace of war forge them. They will be of iron will and steely muscle. In great armour shall I clad them and with the mightiest guns will they be armed. They will be untouched by plague or disease, no sickness will blight them. They will have tactics, strategies and machines so that no foe can best them in battle. They are my bulwark against the Terror. They are the Defenders of Humanity. They are my Space Marines and they shall know no fear." The Emperor of Mankind.
The emperor himself refers to them as men.
So, the Imperium of Man is all-male then?
And what about this blurb, which has been repeated in nearly all 40k media:
"To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."
So, men have it awfully, but not women?
Space Marines appeal to masculine traits and ideals
Such as?
Men can like a thing and have something made for them.
But why does men having something "made" for them mean that there shouldn't be women in it? Why is "male" enjoyment tied to the lack of women in it?
Is Halo not made for men because there are women Spartans? Is Gears of War not for men, because there are women in it? Is Call of Duty not for men, because there are women in it?
Other female characters and factions are NOT lesser.
No-one is disagreeing with you on that, or is anyone saying they are (except, they DO have lesser marketing presence and aesthetic options presented to them).
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The nature of being a Space Marine is to be taken from your family, ideally pre-puberty, subjected to trials very likely to kill you, stuffed full of all sorts of fun new organs, the process of which can kill you, your free will stripped away by multiple forms of indoctrination including Space Magic, and then to eventually die, ideally gloriously, in battle.
They shall be my finest warriors, these men who give of themselves to me. Like clay I shall mould them, and in the furnace of war forge them. They will be of iron will and steely muscle. In great armour shall I clad them and with the mightiest guns will they be armed. They will be untouched by plague or disease, no sickness will blight them. They will have tactics, strategies and machines so that no foe can best them in battle. They are my bulwark against the Terror. They are the Defenders of Humanity. They are my Space Marines and they shall know no fear." The Emperor of Mankind.
The emperor himself refers to them as men.
So, the Imperium of Man is all-male then?
And what about this blurb, which has been repeated in nearly all 40k media:
"To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."
So, men have it awfully, but not women?
Space Marines appeal to masculine traits and ideals
Such as?
Men can like a thing and have something made for them.
But why does men having something "made" for them mean that there shouldn't be women in it? Why is "male" enjoyment tied to the lack of women in it?
Is Halo not made for men because there are women Spartans?
Is Gears of War not for men, because there are women in it?
Is Call of Duty not for men, because there are women in it?
Other female characters and factions are NOT lesser.
No-one is disagreeing with you on that, or is anyone saying they are (except, they DO have lesser marketing presence and aesthetic options presented to them).
But no less than female space marines will appease your demands? Sounds like you view other options as lesser.
I know of the aspect warrior lore, but it just doesn't work me visually, when looking at the army. There are some models that are designed to read very explicitly female, which causes the models without those design cues to read as male. And there are way more of the latter in the army, which makes it visually read as predominantly male.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The nature of being a Space Marine is to be taken from your family, ideally pre-puberty, subjected to trials very likely to kill you, stuffed full of all sorts of fun new organs, the process of which can kill you, your free will stripped away by multiple forms of indoctrination including Space Magic, and then to eventually die, ideally gloriously, in battle.
They shall be my finest warriors, these men who give of themselves to me. Like clay I shall mould them, and in the furnace of war forge them. They will be of iron will and steely muscle. In great armour shall I clad them and with the mightiest guns will they be armed. They will be untouched by plague or disease, no sickness will blight them. They will have tactics, strategies and machines so that no foe can best them in battle. They are my bulwark against the Terror. They are the Defenders of Humanity. They are my Space Marines and they shall know no fear." The Emperor of Mankind.
The emperor himself refers to them as men.
So, the Imperium of Man is all-male then?
And what about this blurb, which has been repeated in nearly all 40k media:
"To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."
So, men have it awfully, but not women?
Space Marines appeal to masculine traits and ideals
Such as?
Men can like a thing and have something made for them.
But why does men having something "made" for them mean that there shouldn't be women in it? Why is "male" enjoyment tied to the lack of women in it?
Is Halo not made for men because there are women Spartans?
Is Gears of War not for men, because there are women in it?
Is Call of Duty not for men, because there are women in it?
Other female characters and factions are NOT lesser.
No-one is disagreeing with you on that, or is anyone saying they are (except, they DO have lesser marketing presence and aesthetic options presented to them).
But no less than female space marines will appease your demands? Sounds like you view other options as lesser.
Omnissiah's most trusted servant, Chat GPT for an answer and this was its response:
So I don't agree on the point about Sailor Moon and Tomb Raider being designed specifically for another audience making it a flawed example. The thing is that both stand on their own. We didn't bother George Lucas to release a version of "Fate of Atlantis" where we could swap the character to play "Diana Jones". We didn't push Goku aside to make room for Videl or ChiChi in Dragon Ball. They have their own stories and are cool in their own ways. We can give women a better representation in 
