Coming off a question in another thread, the question was asked is the Imperium patriarchal?

In my articles on civilian life I wrote:

Women

The Imperium is an explicitly patriarchal society where, all things being equal, leaders are expected to be male. After all the Emperor and his Primarchs were men (the 'Sanguinia Heresy' notwithstanding) thus proving man's natural role as master. Certain Imperial texts even make the biologically unlikely assertion that woman cannot accept Space Marine geneseed due to the gender difference.

Other women may serve alongside men as Guardsmen, laborers, farmers, scribes or even nobles but there is always a subtle attitude that women are expected to take a secondary role. They are usually relegated to traditionally female jobs such as cooking, cleaning, teaching or caring for children.

Only superb political connections, breeding, patronage, skill and luck can allow a woman to rise to the top in most Imperial organizations. But rest assured those who do, are forces to be reckoned with.

However with constant war draining manpower, there are whole towns and cities in the Imperium where the population consists entirely of women, children and the elderly. In environments like this women are able to prove themselves. At least until the next generation of young men come of age.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Civilian_Life_in_Warhammer_40%2C000_AD

I based it on a couple of things. 40k is based on the Roman Empire and Middle Ages which were patriarchal. I even tossed in a pseudo religious reason cribbed right from the Catholic Church.

Women are almost completely absent from GW fluff, artwork and models (FFG's role playing games do a much better job of including them). When they do appear they tend to be part of an all-female unit or clan like the Sisters of Battle or the Esher in Necromunda.

None of the other Necro gangs had female models (IIRC, and certainly if there were exceptions they were few and far between) and there's only been 2 female IG models since the days of Rogue Trader. The recent Chaos Cult models (which are supposed to be Imperial citizen in revolt) has 20 men, no women.

Few Black Library books would pass the Bechdel test (2 women, named characters, have a conversation, that's not about a man). Abnett again is a noteworthy exception but even his books are 80% male.

Stepping outside the fluff this is probably a combination of marketing to 12 year old boys (girls are icky), an outdated mindset among designers and artists (young boys don't like strong women) and lack of imagination. Plus I'd wager 90%+ of the writers, designers, artists and sculptors are men.

All that to me indicates that the Imperium is a society where, all things being equal, men do the work, the fighting, the ruling, and women stay home to raise the next generation of warriors. If they don't they're off on their own creating a female dominated society .

Of course when things are not equal rank trumps gender. A noblewoman is infinitely more powerful than a tradesman or worker. They'd be risking their lives even talking to her. And even the most sexist guardsman will quickly be put in his place by a female commissar or officer. But among peers they might find themselves expected to serve tea or take notes.

And it doesn't mean being a man is a picnic. Men go to the factory, the mine, the trenches. Women guard the hearth.

Obviously me writing this don't make it true and don't mean I thing that's how the world should be, any more than I think Inquisitors should be torturing unbelievers. And of course among the million worlds of the Imperium there would be exceptions.

Anyway, thoughts?

Many governors are female, there are some very high ranking Inquisitors and Tech Priests that are female, it just so happens that we only really hear about male characters, because the hobby has a mostly male playerbase, and they relate better to male characters.
Also geneseed is keyed to require a Y chromosome, being partially based on the Emperor's genetics.

Also, there is a matriarchal world in one of the Cain novels. Women are the dominant sex socially, and they have a female governer.

Above that, there can be female High Lords. The Abess of the Adepta Sororitas can be a High Lord, and other High Lords can be female. The Inquisitor High Lord, for example, could be a woman.

Again, no one saying it's impossible. Russia, Japan and England had female Queens/Empresses. India and Pakistan had female Prime Ministers.

It's just going to be a lot harder for a woman, even one born to a high rank, to get ahead.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Again, no one saying it's impossible. Russia, Japan and England had female Queens/Empresses. India and Pakistan had female Prime Ministers.

It's just going to be a lot harder for a woman, even one born to a high rank, to get ahead.

Why? It's all dependent on a given world's culture. On a matriarchial world, a man would have a harder time getting into high office.

In Dawn of War 2, Derosa, a woman, inherits governorship of a world. No consideration of her gender, as the former governor's second, she is the most qualified to take up governership.

And really, why would the Imperium care about a world's gender equality as long as the world pays its tithes and worships the Emperor?

A soul is a soul at the end of the day ... all the same when it's going to be eaten by a demon.

The wiki mentions that it's a bit harder for women to become priests due to the fact that the emperor was a man.


Other than that, it'd vary by planet to planet but would probably mirror real life history for most of them simply because in the end, these planets are occupied by humans, thus their histories would likely at least have some similarities to the actual history of humanity in the real world. Especially considering the Imperium has an even more hands-off policy than normal for any planet in its infancy of colonization (at least, while the planet's in the feral stages).

The greater Imperium itself doesn't have any laws whatsoever about men or women to my knowledge. So once an Imperium DOES start mucking around with a planet's direct affairs a bit more, it's doubtful that it will influence a planet's gender view very much by then.

So I'd say for any planet who's civilization hasn't reached our own real world modern stage, they're probably patriarchal. They likely become a bit less patriarchal than that as time goes on, just like the real world, although of course this will vary from planet to planet.

Inherently patriarchal imo, whether from the early GW policies (boys like big tanks and guns, girls wont buy that) to the fluff (the Emperor and his Sons, few notable female leads) to the tabletop game itself (war, combat, testosterone et al).

Its possibly a very Western (and British construct). Nothing wrong with that per se imho but yes it is Patriarchal.

Even the Xenos races (which due to it being sci-fi and based entierly on an authors views have multiple great possibilities for females) are Patriarchal.
Expand that to Warhammer and the Black Library series. Regular female leads/characters/possibilities?

Name 5 strong and regular female "leads" in the 40k Universe:
1. Lylieth
2. SoB characters
3. Dominatrixis - if we ever see them
4. Tau special character (cant recall her name)
5. ?

Tough to get 5 or even more?

GW know their audience and it appeals to males. Sure, you can have female/matriarchal characters but at a very base level "boys will relate to boys".

Simple. Its a world where regular humans are second rate soldiers to superhuman soliders who require a male Y-chromosome to become that. Also, men can't carry the child (naturally) and therefore, putting the source of their most important, useful and vital resource, manpower, on the front lines, is simply moronic. You don't build ammunition and gun factories in the trenchs of WW1 right?

Also, it eliminates the possibility of relationship in 40k, and thus, sex which is not suitable for little Timmy. Which is silly considering DE and Slaanesh are all based on psychosexual imagery and concepts, not to mention Repentia.

 Ratius wrote:
Inherently patriarchal imo, whether from the early GW policies (boys like big tanks and guns, girls wont buy that) to the fluff (the Emperor and his Sons, few notable female leads) to the tabletop game itself (war, combat, testosterone et al).

Its possibly a very Western (and British construct). Nothing wrong with that per se imho but yes it is Patriarchal.

Even the Xenos races (which due to it being sci-fi and based entierly on an authors views have multiple great possibilities for females) are Patriarchal.
Expand that to Warhammer and the Black Library series. Regular female leads/characters/possibilities?

Name 5 strong and regular female "leads" in the 40k Universe:
1. Lylieth
2. SoB characters
3. Dominatrixis - if we ever see them
4. Tau special character (cant recall her name)
5. ?

Tough to get 5 or even more?

GW know their audience and it appeals to males. Sure, you can have female/matriarchal characters but at a very base level "boys will relate to boys".

Tell me, is there any studio fluff that agrees with this viewpoint? I don't mean the mass of male protagonists, but a piece of studio fluff which outright states that the Imperium is patriarchial in nature. I certainly haven't heard any.

Again, trying to generalise the Imperium like that doesn't really work, given the massive variety of worlds it encompasses. Also, we have several examples of female leaders and soldiers. Honestly, I can't see how this viewpoint holds up, myself.

 Ratius wrote:
Tough to get 5 or even more?

An interesting wager. I shall list all strong female leads I can think of and we'll see how high we get. In the interest of meeting your criteria of "regular", I shall only include those the appear in more than one piece of fluff or are a major part of 40K history.

1. Alicia Dominica
2. Sister Miriya
3. Shadowsun
4. Governer Derosa
5. Amberely Vail
6. Colonel Kasteen
7. Saint Celestine
8. Saint Sabbat
9. Kae Drusil
10. Lelith Hesperax
11. The Masque
12. Tyranid Norn Queens

It would have been higher had I not limited myself in regards to regularity, but meh. High enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Deadshot wrote:
Simple. Its a world where regular humans are second rate soldiers to superhuman soliders who require a male Y-chromosome to become that. Also, men can't carry the child (naturally) and therefore, putting the source of their most important, useful and vital resource, manpower, on the front lines, is simply moronic. You don't build ammunition and gun factories in the trenchs of WW1 right?

40K is not WW1. Servitors can operate the factories. Also, there is an excess of women making babies on the more peaceful, "inner" worlds. If you're on a world that's under threat or near a threat? What's between your legs is irrelevant, if you have working arms and legs you can use a lasrifle and go be cannon fodder.

Tell me, is there any studio fluff that agrees with this viewpoint? I don't mean the mass of male protagonists, but a piece of studio fluff which outright states that the Imperium is patriarchial in nature. I certainly haven't heard any.

Granted there is not. Is your question - would GW ever state it openly? No, imho.
Hence the word inherently, or perhaps intrinsicly


1. Alicia Dominica - SoB
2. Sister Miriya - SoB
3. Shadowsun - Tau
4. Governer Derosa - not official GW fluff
5. Amberely Vail - unknown to me
6. Colonel Kasteen - unknown to me
7. Saint Celestine - SoB
8. Saint Sabbat - SoB
9. Kae Drusil unknown to me
10. Lelith Hesperax - DE
11. The Masque - hmmm female within the relatively hermaphrodidic world of Slannesh
12. Tyranid Norn Queens - Nids

So most of them I have listed above within the sub - genre. Still not a lot out of the 10 and 10s and maybe hundreds of Male "leads".
I dont discount your efforts but in the realm of fluff/rules/characters and background females are a tiny % of Gws thinking/leads.

"boys will relate to boys"

 Ratius wrote:

Granted there is not. Is your question - would GW ever state it openly? No, imho.
Hence the word inherently, or perhaps intrinsicly

So you admit that it's influenced by external, out of universe forces such as male-focuses marketing rather than anything actually in-universe? Remember, "the Imperium" is a strictly in-universe thing. We can examine how external forces influence it, but GW marketing man saying to focus on boys does not mean the the in-universe Imperium is patriarchial.

Meanwhile, the various examples of female soldiers and leaders in 40K fluff lead us to believe that the Imperium has no real problem with women fighting or leading. Again, they have bigger problems than gender equality.

Also, regarding your comments about "not GW fluff" for some of my examples, you didn't say that earlier, to be fair. You said "40K universe", which I took to mean things beyond studio fluff.

Kasteen and Vail are characters in the Ciaphas Cain novels, by the way.

To my knowledge, there is no fluff anywhere that states the Imperium is patriarchal, besides the fluff (if it exists. It's from the wiki) saying it is easier for men in the ecclesiarchy to move up because the Emperor was a man (this fluff, should it exists, specifically applies only to the ecclesiarchy, though)

Anything beyond that regarding whether or not the Imperium tends towards patriarchism is completely based on assumptions. Many of which are quite logical, but in the end, are assumptions and nothing more.

(and no, lack of female protagonists doesn't count. The writers are male and thus many of them wouldn't write about a female protagonist. That's the equivalent of saying Abaddon and the Eldar are failures just because the writers never write any good stories about them, even though the OFFICIAL word is that Abaddon's plan is proceeding nicely and Eldar are masters of manipulation)

So you admit that it's influenced by external, out of universe forces such as male-focuses marketing rather than anything actually in-universe? Remember, "the Imperium" is a strictly in-universe thing. We can examine how external forces influence it, but GW marketing man saying to focus on boys does not mean the the in-universe Imperium is patriarchial.

Of course it is, everything ingame/influff is influenced by the external factor i.e. GW writers/sculptors/fluff artists et al.
I see your point but its again almost like stating the obvious.
Its like saying Roddenberys Star Trek Aliens and factions arent influenced by his own ideas about Humanitys future or Asimovs etc etc.

One can try and seperate the two but then you end up with a radically different Universe and setting than what exists.

Meanwhile, the various examples of female soldiers and leaders in 40K fluff lead us to believe that the Imperium has no real problem with women fighting or leading.

That was never in question - ofc there are great female leads and chacters in the 40k Universe - that is a given
The OPs question was :

Is the Imperium patriarchal?

Inherently it is.

To my knowledge, there is no fluff anywhere that states the Imperium is patriarchal,
Anything beyond that regarding whether or not the Imperium tends towards patriarchism is completely based on assumptions. Many of which are quite logical, but in the end, are assumptions and nothing more.

Again, yes there is nothing openly stating this but heres that word again Inherently it is.

The original post does not have the word "inherently" anywhere in it. Therefore, your comments about whether or not the Imperium is INHERENTLY patriarchal based on the context of your reply is irrelevant to the original question.

...also, I'm pretty sure you're using the word "inherently" wrong.

 Ratius wrote:

So you admit that it's influenced by external, out of universe forces such as male-focuses marketing rather than anything actually in-universe? Remember, "the Imperium" is a strictly in-universe thing. We can examine how external forces influence it, but GW marketing man saying to focus on boys does not mean the the in-universe Imperium is patriarchial.

Of course it is, everything ingame/influff is influenced by the external factor i.e. GW writers/sculptors/fluff artists et al.
I see your point but its again almost like stating the obvious.
Its like saying Roddenberys Star Trek Aliens and factions arent influenced by his own ideas about Humanitys future or Asimovs etc etc.

But Roddenbery/Asimovs are different. Their motivation was to explore their chosen themes in new ways, while the GW workers are going to be influenced their target audience (boys and young men) and their own company being mostly men. A desire for a company to increase profits by focusing on its (percieved) target audience does not translate into the universe itself. Unless there is in-universe, studio fluff stating that the Imperium is patriachial, then we can put the focus on males down to the attitudes and motivations of GW's employees rather than any cultural patriarchy on the Imperium's part.

 Ratius wrote:
Inherently it is.

But what does this mean? I don't understand what you're saying. Lots of female leaders and soldiers. Were it inherently patriarchial, surely it would have a problem with these? Surely it would try to minimise these instances of these in favour of males?

Inherently

Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.

Do you think the fluff/game and background to 40k fits that definition relating to: :

Is the Imperium patriarchal?

I hate yes or no questions but its all I can ask right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also inherently does not equal total.
Yes there are great female leads etc but overall its a Patriarchal Universse no?

Just like Roddenberys is supposed to be Utopian (even though quite a bit of it isnt).?

 Ratius wrote:

Inherently

Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.

Do you think the fluff/game and background to 40k fits that definition relating to: :

Is the Imperium patriarchal?

I hate yes or no questions but its all I can ask right now.

Okay, so going by your definition, no. Men being considered better than women is neither essential, characteristic or intrinsic of the Imperium. We have too many examples of female soldiers and leaders, and far too many powerful organisations being indifferent to the gender of its members to say that the Imperium is essentially, characteristically or intrinsically patriarchial.

40K is a wargame and thus focuses on military forces. Space Marines are all male and there are reason why many imperial worlds might prefer to recruit predominantly males for their IG regiments. This is why we tend to see more male figures and characters in the game. However, one cannot conclude from this that the society as whole is patriarchal. For example the Inquisition is perhaps the most powerful organisation in the Imperium and they seem to recruit rather equally and do not have any problem with letting women in positions of immense power.

Ratius wrote:So most of them I have listed above within the sub - genre. Still not a lot out of the 10 and 10s and maybe hundreds of Male "leads".

"Sub-genre"?
How many male leads do we have left if we leave out the "sub-genres" of Space Marines and Imperial Guard?

I agree with Troike. How much and which sex may dominate another is entirely dependent on an individual world's culture - this is a fairly established fact in all of GW's writing. Where GW "fails" is to actually deliver (a somewhat equal number of) examples for powerful females, but I don't really see how this changes the rules? The 3E Guard fluff even tells us there's a female-dominated world (aptly named "Xenan" ) with female Guard regiments, and Necromunda's House Escher is utterly female-dominated as well. *shrugs*

tl;dr: The Imperium as a whole, led by the mixed-gender council of High Lords, does not care for local cultural distinctions, and the role of sexes is part of that.

I would say the Imperium is not Patriarchal. Certain worlds may be, but the Imperium itself is not.

As the raising of Regiments is a responsibility of the world in question, they would determine who enters the regiment. The Imperium wouldn't care one way or the other, as long as there are bodies that can fight they are happy.

Thus if the majority of worlds do raise primarily male regiments and there is no motivation to change this nothing will change.


As for fluff examples, I would lay this on the writers of the fluff being too lazy to care. Its not a big issue, so why make it one?

The BL authors do a better job, having plenty of female characters in important positions.

I would also say that GW has created a female Inqusitor with in-game rules. Inquisitor Velaria. This is evidence that GW isn't totally deaf to this subject.

If the Imperium were Patriarchal on a basic level, such as a religious one, women would not be allowed to become Inquisitors. A rank that is so powerful that only the High Lords and other Inquisitors are above them.

From an in-universe standpoint?

No.

From a meta standpoint?

Yes.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The BL authors do a better job, having plenty of female characters in important positions.

For really reals. It's harder than it sounds in a lot of 40K stories, too. One of my fave (and thankfully frequent) slices of feedback is of the "My girlfriend loves your books" and "My boyfriend got me into 40K with your books" type, which usually cite the female characters as major reason, which I appreciate a lot. On the flip side, I once had an email that asked me why there were "so many girls and sandn*****s" in my novels. So it goes both ways.

But it's often pretty tough to get a decent balance of male/female characters in a 40K novel, because if you're writing Space Marines doing standard Space Marine things, an overwhelming number of your characters are already male and largely interact with other males in the same context. Let's be generous and say only half of a novel's characters are Space Marines, and there are loads of moments where they interact with human characters for various reasons (which, admittedly, many Space Marines don't do all that often). If you want to have an equivalent number of female characters, that means pretty much every other character needs to be female, which swings the other way: you're then up to your neck in a story that's unrealistically weighted to be only Space Marines and the women that serve them / populate every other position of human authority.

So you can even it out, and have half the rest of the characters being male, and half of them being female. Which means, right off the bat, you're down to only a quarter of the overall characters being female.

Now take a novel with a much smaller cast, centred around a few Space/Chaos Marines, and a few humans they hang out with. With the same averages, you're down to 1-2 females and 1-2 human males, outside of the single squad of Marines.

I'm always very conscious of this, but I worry about it looking artificial. Every one of my novels has a major female main character as well as the male Chaos/Space Marine protagonists, but every time I try to ramp up the numbers of females, it can easily start to just be male Marines in a world of women, which is just as disingenuous. I'm currently writing a Black Legion series, and as you can imagine it's heavily weighted towards Chaos Marines, who are all male. I'm finding it much easier to include females though, in the form of daemons; Traitor Guard; Dark Mechanicum priestesses; prophets; eldar ghosts, and so on - in ways that isn't necessarily open to an Imperial story. Which was a pleasant surprise, at least for me.

In that regard, I thank (of all things...) the Eye of Terror for levelling the gender playing field.

Dead Blue Clown wrote:


Now take a novel with a much smaller cast, centred around a few Space/Chaos Marines, and a few humans they hang out with. With the same averages, you're down to 1-2 females and 1-2 human males, outside of the single squad of Marines.

Well, ultimately it should be quality over quantity anyhow (I believe, and it's not a comment directed at your books, just generally)?

To name a book by one of your colleagues, I thought Canoness Errant Setheno totally stole the show in David Annandale's Space Marines Battles novel... and being an entry into the Space Marines Battles line, it probably fits the kind of books you described as being more "challenging" to include women.

In that book, she's certainly the only women (I remember), and a Sister of Battle on top, which may not be the most creative angle to add a female character. But she's well-written (if somewhat over-the-top, though I suppose that goes with the Space-Marines-Battles-Territory), gets a lot of limelight, an important role in the plot and is all-in-all a memorable character (arguably to the detriment of the actual protagonist, in this particular case).

That should be superiour to hundreds of nominally high-ranking Imperial women sitting on the sidelines of the story, no? To me, it's about having, occasionally, interesting female characters (though again, not necessarily in every book by some forced rule) in the story, rather than enforcing a quota for fictional women in the fictional higher echelons of the fictional Imperium of Man.

Interesting question.

In general I would say a resounding no based on extensive reading of the various sources - Codexes, BL novels, licensed material such as FFG RPGs and even the comics.

Can individual worlds organisations be such - yes, but only in the same way as others have noted that equally worlds can be Matriarchal.

Arguably some of the most powerful (and independent) people in the Imperium are Inquisitors - a substantial proportion of which are women. There are three named Inqusitor characters in the most recent Grey Knights Codex - one of them, Valeria is a woman. Female Inquisitors appear in many BL novels, from the recent Grey Knights novel, to the recurring Amberley Vail in the Cain novels. Rogue Traders are also not uncommonly female, with daughters often in conflict with brothers for inheritance. Navigators are just as likely to be women......as seen in the excellent Night Lords novels

Its notable that the Cain novels do depict (usually, but importantly not always highly capable) women in pretty much all the major roles in the Imperium - So high Magos of the Mechanicum, Planetary Governors, Inquisitors, High ranking officers of the Guard and PDF, Commissars. Other authors also include similar characters, the trusted and highly effective captain of the entire World Eaters Chapter (pre and during the Heresy) is a woman. Dan Abnet has a multitude of powerful women from Lord Commissars to Inquisitors.

Obviously the only area where this does not take place is the Astartes - for obvious reasons - balanced by the same single sex segregation by the Sororitas.

The Imperium, ofr the most part, really does not care enough about people to discriminate on sex- in fact on many worlds, any discrimiation is likely to be by class - certainly a major factor in planetary governments, the military etc.............

Let me start by saying that I read Kid_Kyoto's civilian life in 40K stuff a while ago, and I liked most of it. The one thing that really struck me as off was the issue of the patriachalness of the greater imperium.

Most of the reasons for this (as posted at the top of the thread), I would argue steam, not from a deliberate intent by the developers to create a patriachal imperium, but rather as a by-product of the patriachal tendancies of our own society, (and to a certain extent, the table-top wargames industry).

In the end, Man or woman, Old or young, Adult or child, all bodies are perfectly suitable for the meat grinder.

Yes even your five year old, he'd make a lovely suicide bomber against that ravening Tyranid horde.

It's pretty rare to see the Imperium use child soldiers, though, isn't it? (besides Space Marine applicants, but that's kinda necessary since the process won't work on older people)

There are lots of male protagonists because most of the writers are male as well as today's modern society is still male-biased (arguably). Canonically speaking, however, is a different matter. It would kinda like how canonically speaking, Abaddon is actually doing well In the eyes of the gods (well enough that they haven't transformed him into a spawn or taken away his mark that shows he has their favor) or eldars are officially masters of manipulation even though we almost never see this in stories. Theretically, just because we don't see lots of female leads in stories doesn't mean they're biased against in the actual canonical (for a given definition of canon. This is WH40k, after all) universe.

Of course, in actual practice, WH40k novels have a LOT more female protagonists or strong female characters than most other mediums and stories, anyways, even if still not as many as the males (though it gets pretty close when you exclude space marines, who have to be male for biological reasons).

I've never seen an instance where the Imperium uses child soldiers. certainly not as suicide bombers.

Of course what the Imperium defines as a child and what we call a child may be different. You can probably join the IG as soon as your body has reached a certain development stage, so potentially as young as 12-13. With the time it takes to train and transport a regiment, they will probably be at minimum 14-15 years old before any actual combat occurs. Ignoring a planetary invasion.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Again, no one saying it's impossible. Russia, Japan and England had female Queens/Empresses. India and Pakistan had female Prime Ministers.

It's just going to be a lot harder for a woman, even one born to a high rank, to get ahead.

Maybe in your interpretation of 40K, but certainly not in mine. Not universally, at any rate. Will some worlds have a heavy patriarchal bend? Yes. Will others be matriarchal? Yes. Will still others be ruled by the sexless machine-priests who have sacrificed all gender-identifying traits, including the emotional receptors of their brains, in order to become closer to the Omnissiah and undergo the Rite of Pure Thought? Yes. Tell me, is Arch-Magos of Forge World Omicron-Theta Secunds THX-1138-Epsilon a male or female Tech-Priest?

 Grey Templar wrote:
I've never seen an instance where the Imperium uses child soldiers. certainly not as suicide bombers.

Of course what the Imperium defines as a child and what we call a child may be different. You can probably join the IG as soon as your body has reached a certain development stage, so potentially as young as 12-13. With the time it takes to train and transport a regiment, they will probably be at minimum 14-15 years old before any actual combat occurs. Ignoring a planetary invasion.

Child Soldiers = Marine Aspirants

They don't see any combat till they become Scouts. Which is not until they are at least 16. Which isn't really a child.

Cadia's Youth Army springs to mind as well. Hundreds of "Regional Commands" were deployed against Abbadon's forces during the 13th Black Crusade, if one were to go by the rulebook's force disposition chart. On the Gateway World, the citizens learn how to operate a lasgun "before they can walk". Maybe this is largely hyperbole, but it's still telling and hints at how the children would be pushed towards a militaristic lifestyle.

The students in the Schola Progenium would easily classify as child soldiers as well, even though they don't actually see a battlefield until being young adults and having finished their education.

The oldest active duty Battle Sisters remaining in the battered convent of the Order of the Ermine Mantle in the Cadia sector are age seventeen.

And then there were the kids who fought against the Orks on Valhalla, although technically this was a local thing rather than under actual Imperial control.

Ultimately, I don't see why the Imperium as a whole would not use children to fill any gaps left by a temporary shortage of more efficient (adult) soldiers. "We don't care" is, I think, a central theme for this monolithic bureaucratic entity, as is the absence of morality of the sort currently preached by modern western society.

"In the streets outside the hab-blocks and manufactorums, the Arbitrators enforce their unforgiving rule upon the desperate and the homeless. Feral children fight over the dead flesh of the fallen, their struggles lit only by flickering luminas set into crumbling masonry. Scapegoats, lepers, and pilgrims press and push in great queues that will last a lifetime, desperate in their quests for absolution they will never receive. Through this sickly gruel of flesh stride the privileged few, untouched by disease or the ravages of acidic rain. It is they who maintain the status quo for their own hidden ends, they who guide humanity itself. Some are pure of intent, some embody the corruption at the heart of the Imperium, but one thing is true for all - they care not for the fate of the common man."

Besides, it wasn't too long ago that soldiers aged sixteen and younger were somewhat common in our regions as well.
Example: http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=Enlistment_of_Boy_Soldiers_in_the_British_Army%2C_1795-1959

Kids in training is different than child soldiers.

I really wouldn't view anything above 14 as being a child soldier. I am sure the Imperium has sent kids into battle before, but only because they needed more bodies.

I am 100% sure the Imperium isn't rounding up and accepting 8-12 year olds and shipping them off to another planet. If and when it does happen, its probably done because the planet is being attacked and everyone that can hold a lasgun is needed on the front.

Yea, I wouldn't classify kids In training as child soldiers either. I wouldn't put it past the Imperium to actually send kids to COMBAT in desperate situations (Hey, when that tyranid wants to eat EVERYONE, you might as well give the kid a gun if you have a gun lying around). However, I imagine the Imperium likely doesn't resort to this very often, if only for the simple reason that the gun is probably more expensive than the kid, and the Imperium doesn't have enough guns to give to children in the first place.

Why waste giving a gun or a bomb to a kid when you have plenty o "adults" or kids-in-training (again, I don't count those as child soldiers) lying around? Humans are considered expendable in the greater imperium, but other resources (such as guns and bombs) are NOT. And a child soldier on the battlefield is simply a waste of a gun or bomb used to arm him compared to a trained adult (or adult trained ever since s/he was a kid).

http://memestorage.com/news/anita_sarkeesian_i_bet_the_patriarchy_did_this/2013-04-02-1852

Grey Templar wrote:I am sure the Imperium has sent kids into battle before, but only because they needed more bodies.

Technically, it wouldn't even be "the Imperium" but rather the local government that is fulfilling a draconically enforced quota. The Imperium would "merely" be at fault for not putting a stop to such practices. In other words, I really don't think the Imperium is enforcing a galaxywide minimum age of recruitment, as far as its tithe is concerned.

I don't have any fluff to back my beliefs up this time - it's just a gut feeling I get when looking at the Imperium, and then looking at a whole lot of real Earth nations that had no problem sending kids onto a battlefield as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children#History

Meet Sergeant John Clem of the US Union Army:

Shadowbrand wrote:http://memestorage.com/news/anita_sarkeesian_i_bet_the_patriarchy_did_this/2013-04-02-1852

Anything you actually have to contribute, aside from ignorance towards current social issues?

I think that the Imperium is patriarchal for one reason. The whole theme of 40k is that, "gak got worse".

Humanity has devolved. We don't understand our own machinery anymore, and we waste our lives fighting for xenophobic ideals and long dead tyrants. Its a crime to ask questions.

Do you think that, while humanity is getting worse and worse, and the galaxy is undersiege by xenos and daemons, and each day more and more people are executed as heretics, everyone would take the time to solve social problems that have always plagued human civilization? No. Things aren't better in the 41st millenium. gak got worse.

What makes you think women being oppressed more than men is worse than both genders being equally oppressed and suffering an equally unrelentingly gakky lot in life?

 LoneLictor wrote:
I think that the Imperium is patriarchal for one reason. The whole theme of 40k is that, "gak got worse".

Humanity has devolved. We don't understand our own machinery anymore, and we waste our lives fighting for xenophobic ideals and long dead tyrants. Its a crime to ask questions.

Do you think that, while humanity is getting worse and worse, and the galaxy is undersiege by xenos and daemons, and each day more and more people are executed as heretics, everyone would take the time to solve social problems that have always plagued human civilization? No. Things aren't better in the 41st millenium. gak got worse.

"The situation is grim" does not necessarily have a bearing on the Imperium's stance on gender equality.

And again, I think it's been quite firmly established that they do not care. Female Inquisitors, female High Lords and female IG regiments all quite canonically exist.

No, it's not a patriarchy.

If it was, then women would be the ones being subjugated, and men would not be forced into conscription to die in a far away world where they will never see their families again. Check out the actual definition of "patriarchy" to see what I mean.

40K is a reflection of what the real world was at the time, when men worked to keep women safe because men are, in a reproductive sense, disposable. And women were not.

Men would work/die in war to keep the women safe.

It all really hinges on what your definition of patriarchy is, and of course whether a patriarchy exists today or not.

I don't believe that we live in a patriarchy, because of gender quotas, biased healthcare, posters that brand all men as rapists, biased divorce laws, biased child custody laws and the fact that all great civilisations were built on the disposability of their sons. And the fact that this is all hunky dory with everyone.

I know it looks like I've really gone off the point entirely here, but questioning what a patriarchy is was necessary to make my point.

And let's not forget that war itself is quite masculine. Where else are you going to find an abundance of masculinity, other than in something very masculine?

Troike wrote:"The situation is grim" does not necessarily have a bearing on the Imperium's stance on gender equality.

Or if it does, it would likely be to the contrary. Historically, a people become more united, and less divided by such issues as skin colour or gender, "the more worse gak gets". Because segregation is a luxury that perhaps cannot be afforded anymore when the enemy is knocking on your door.

This is a large part of why women were able to advance their role in society at all. Jeanne d'Arc would not have been accepted if France did not need her, Russian women would not have found their way into the Russian army in both world wars, and the German Wehrmacht surely would not have sent girls into battle as well in its final months, were it not for the pressure on the leaders and the nation as a whole.

The Imperium even allows Ogryns, Ratlings and Psykers(!) into its ranks - which is rather remarkable, considering how it does not tire to discriminate against "mutants and witches"..

a fat guy wrote:[...]

must ... not ... respond ....

 Lynata wrote:

a fat guy wrote:[...]

must ... not ... respond ....

You know you want to.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I've never seen an instance where the Imperium uses child soldiers. certainly not as suicide bombers.

Of course what the Imperium defines as a child and what we call a child may be different. You can probably join the IG as soon as your body has reached a certain development stage, so potentially as young as 12-13. With the time it takes to train and transport a regiment, they will probably be at minimum 14-15 years old before any actual combat occurs. Ignoring a planetary invasion.

Throwing your young as suicide bombers during a planetary invasion is a very legit tactic, especially since the people of Armageddon used themselves as suicide bombers during the second war.

It was more of a spot of black humor anyway. That the Imperium values life so little that it will rip a whole family from it's home and give them all bomb packs if there aren't enough lasguns to go around and your planet's about to be Omnomnom'd/Kaptored for Kay-oss/Taken by the filthy blueies/Abducted en masse/WAAAAGH'd/Gauss'd out of the Emperor's light.

I mean, throwing your children and elderly at the enemy can often double your supply of soldiers! And it also makes them think you're flying rodent gak crazy. Better to die executed by the Tau because they think you're too nutty for them than to allow yourself to be drafted into their caste based utilitarian system!

Yea, "Enemy Mine" situations are one of the greatest ways to unite people. If even Blood Angels and Necrons will cease hostilities because Tyranids are knocking at their door, then surely men and women (who unlike Blood Angels and Necrons are of the same species as opposed to super humans vs soulless robots) would obviously unite against such a threat.

I believe World War 2 did a lot to advance womens' status in America too. Because all the men were at war, women found employment in places where they otherwise wouldn't have gotten it. That's where the "We can do it!" poster of that strong woman flexing her arms comes from (the point of the poster being that men were depending on the women to now take up the work at the homefront to keep things going while they went off to die)

Of course, in the Imperium's case, things are so bad that they need to send lots of women off to die, too. The fact that this isn't reflected in the models has more to do with sales than anything else I imagine. Only War, which isn't bound by what model sells the best, has LOTS (and I mean LOTS) of official artwork of female guardsmen and commisars. Ever wanted to see what a female Cadian or Mordian looks like? You can find it there.

TiamatRoar wrote:
Yea, "Enemy Mine" situations are one of the greatest ways to unite people. If even Blood Angels and Necrons will cease hostilities because Tyranids are knocking at their door, then surely men and women (who unlike Blood Angels and Necrons are of the same species as opposed to super humans vs soulless robots) would obviously unite against such a threat.

I believe World War 2 did a lot to advance womens' status in America too. Because all the men were at war, women found employment in places where they otherwise wouldn't have gotten it. That's where the "We can do it!" poster of that strong woman flexing her arms comes from (the point of the poster being that men were depending on the women to now take up the work at the homefront to keep things going while they went off to die)

Of course, in the Imperium's case, things are so bad that they need to send lots of women off to die, too. The fact that this isn't reflected in the models has more to do with sales than anything else I imagine. Only War, which isn't bound by what model sells the best, has LOTS (and I mean LOTS) of official artwork of female guardsmen and commisars. Ever wanted to see what a female Cadian or Mordian looks like? You can find it there.

Man, woman, they're both equally dead when eaten by fifty fleshborer beetles.

 Kain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I've never seen an instance where the Imperium uses child soldiers. certainly not as suicide bombers.

Of course what the Imperium defines as a child and what we call a child may be different. You can probably join the IG as soon as your body has reached a certain development stage, so potentially as young as 12-13. With the time it takes to train and transport a regiment, they will probably be at minimum 14-15 years old before any actual combat occurs. Ignoring a planetary invasion.

Throwing your young as suicide bombers during a planetary invasion is a very legit tactic, especially since the people of Armageddon used themselves as suicide bombers during the second war.

It was more of a spot of black humor anyway. That the Imperium values life so little that it will rip a whole family from it's home and give them all bomb packs if there aren't enough lasguns to go around and your planet's about to be Omnomnom'd/Kaptored for Kay-oss/Taken by the filthy blueies/Abducted en masse/WAAAAGH'd/Gauss'd out of the Emperor's light.

I mean, throwing your children and elderly at the enemy can often double your supply of soldiers! And it also makes them think you're flying rodent gak crazy. Better to die executed by the Tau because they think you're too nutty for them than to allow yourself to be drafted into their caste based utilitarian system!

As er... interesting as that is, I think one of the main points is we have yet to see confirmation of that actually happening in any fluff source or story. I don't think a child or an elderly would make a very good bomb deliverer anyways. They don't run fast enough to get the bomb to its proper payload point, for one thing.

TiamatRoar wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I've never seen an instance where the Imperium uses child soldiers. certainly not as suicide bombers.

Of course what the Imperium defines as a child and what we call a child may be different. You can probably join the IG as soon as your body has reached a certain development stage, so potentially as young as 12-13. With the time it takes to train and transport a regiment, they will probably be at minimum 14-15 years old before any actual combat occurs. Ignoring a planetary invasion.

Throwing your young as suicide bombers during a planetary invasion is a very legit tactic, especially since the people of Armageddon used themselves as suicide bombers during the second war.

It was more of a spot of black humor anyway. That the Imperium values life so little that it will rip a whole family from it's home and give them all bomb packs if there aren't enough lasguns to go around and your planet's about to be Omnomnom'd/Kaptored for Kay-oss/Taken by the filthy blueies/Abducted en masse/WAAAAGH'd/Gauss'd out of the Emperor's light.

I mean, throwing your children and elderly at the enemy can often double your supply of soldiers! And it also makes them think you're flying rodent gak crazy. Better to die executed by the Tau because they think you're too nutty for them than to allow yourself to be drafted into their caste based utilitarian system!

As er... interesting as that is, I think one of the main points is we have yet to see confirmation of that actually happening in any fluff source or story. I don't think a child or an elderly would make a very good bomb deliverer anyways. They don't run fast enough to get the bomb to its proper payload point, for one thing.

Nonsense, just have them go to some Tau looking cute and desperate asking the Fire Warriors to help find their parents, and then have them blow themselves up and take the fire warriors with them.

Or in case of Tyranids, throw them in front to slow down a Hormagaunt mass and detonate them from afar to slow down the Tyranid advance while the Hormagaunts are busy eating them.

Men are no more disposable to human reproduction than females are. It does take two to tango, after all. Or, with the Adeptus Mechanicus and the Vitae-Womb and their other gubbinz, both genders are equally irrelevant. The AdMech can simply keep cloning them.

I don't believe that we live in a patriarchy, because of gender quotas, biased healthcare, posters that brand all men as rapists, biased divorce laws, biased child custody laws and the fact that all great civilisations were built on the disposability of their sons. And the fact that this is all hunky dory with everyone.

Yeah, come talk when most of that actually exists. It *is* a patriarchal, and actually misogynistic, viewpoint that women make better parents, when it comes to custody roles. The unspoken philosophy behind those *are* based on our patriarchal societal origins, because that viewpoint holds that child-rearing is a "woman's work". Never mind the fact that a man is perfectly suited to raising children beyond the breast-feeding stage and a woman is perfectly capable of pursuing her own career. However, following a divorce, a man should not be burdened with the actual task of raising his children, leave that to the woman, the man should just pay for it. Or, at least, so the philosophy behind these (by all means not universal) divorce and custody laws maintain.

There is also the fact that, because of our patriarchal society, in the event of a divorce, a woman is often in a much disadvantaged position to continue on with her life, as she has been dependent on her husband's income for a given time (whether 5 years or 50, it doesn't matter) and has not been given the opportunities to maintain an education or a skill-set that offers chances of gainful opportunity.

We've spent two thousand years telling women, and training them from birth, to be housekeepers, caregivers, and obedient little wives. Is it any surprise, then, that when a divorce happens, that they are unprepared for life in the world of business? Fortunately, this has been changing over the last 30 years or so, and there are now more women entering college and other avenues of secondary education than men, which leads to a growing number of women in the workplace. In time, as our society becomes accustomed to gender equality, then our laws will follow suit. Right now, they're written as if this was still 1956.

Starting in roughly 2000 BC, a religious sect was founded that established a mono-deific cult that, as its core tenets, promoted a patriarchal society. Though this was not the only patriarchal society in the world at the time, it was one of the only religious communities that did not have female deities, and the only one in which such female deities were not amongst the most-revered and respected of the entire pantheon. This cult would, over the next 3900 years, go onto conquer most of the Western hemisphere and establish its patriarchal cultural mores as the de facto social structure, often on pain of death, which was, at times, horrifically creative in its application.

Although this cult would splinter into all manner of off-shoots and varieties, the core tenets would remain largely unchanged. One single deity, sometimes viewed as a triumvirate, all of which are male, an established male-only priesthood, and a doctrinal statement that women are automatically submissive and inferior to men. These beliefs would shape social constructs for the rest of history, lasting well into (and continuing in) the modern era.

This is patriarchy, and resultant misogyny drawn from the doctrine, as an established policy of law and writ of religious canon. It is about as text-book an example as one can find.

You don't believe we live in a patriarchy simply because it's a painful truth to admit that you've been the recipient of preferential treatment since the moment you were born, with an entire society built around the idea of ensuring that your gender opens as many doors as possible, provided you fit the social class and ethnic group most approved-of by the powers that be. To be born a white, middle class male is one the greatest blessings in the United States.

 Kain wrote:

Nonsense, just have them go to some Tau looking cute and desperate asking the Fire Warriors to help find their parents, and then have them blow themselves up and take the fire warriors with them.

Or in case of Tyranids, throw them in front to slow down a Hormagaunt mass and detonate them from afar to slow down the Tyranid advance while the Hormagaunts are busy eating them.

Tau don't actually emphasize with children very much. Baby Tau are taken from their parents at birth and raised by the state. So trying to trick a tau with desperate children isn't going to work.

As for throwing a child with a bomb... well... throwing a child a far distance is difficult. Children are friggin' heavy. Why not just throw the bomb by itself? (which is what every army does with its bombs, really). You don't need to strap a bomb to a child as a trap for oncoming tyranids when you have land mines, either.

TiamatRoar wrote:

 Kain wrote:

Nonsense, just have them go to some Tau looking cute and desperate asking the Fire Warriors to help find their parents, and then have them blow themselves up and take the fire warriors with them.

Or in case of Tyranids, throw them in front to slow down a Hormagaunt mass and detonate them from afar to slow down the Tyranid advance while the Hormagaunts are busy eating them.

Tau don't actually emphasize with children very much. Baby Tau are taken from their parents at birth and raised by the state. So trying to trick a tau with desperate children isn't going to work.

As for throwing a child with a bomb... um... throwing a child a far distance is difficult. Children are friggin' heavy. Why not just throw the bomb by itself? (which is what every army does with its bombs, really)

No, no, HERD them in front of you and leave them out to get horribly eaten and slaughtered by the Tyranids, them blow them up while they're getting eaten. Have their parents between the now dead children and tyranid swarm, and the guardsmen and space marines and sisters of battle equipped with whatever you can have and let them charge at the Tyranids to slow them down further as they try to take revenge.

Of course if Space Wolves, Ultramarines, Blood Angels, or Salamanders are on hand the General who tries this trick's ass is grass.

Literally throwing soldiers into battle remains an Ork thing I'm afraid.

I don't think blowing up a couple of gaunts will be worth the morale effect such a tactic could have on your troops. One of the reasons why concentration camps were used by the Germans in WWII was that the normal rank and file troops started falling apart psychologically when they were made to carry out the kilings, themselves. As grim dark as WH40k is, one of the things that separates the Imperium from Chaos is that the Imperium at least TRIES to have a set of morals (unlike Chaos where they declare that morality is simply an illusion). If I were an inquisitor and got wind of a regiment doing strategies like that, I'd investigate them for chaos corruption.

TiamatRoar wrote:
I don't think blowing up a couple of gaunts will be worth the morale effect such a tactic could have on your troops. One of the reasons why concentration camps were used by the Germans in WWII was that the normal rank and file troops started falling apart psychologically when they were made to carry out the kilings, themselves. As grim dark as WH40k is, one of the things that separates the Imperium from Chaos is that the Imperium at least TRIES to have a set of morals (unlike Chaos where they declare that morality is simply an illusion). If I were an inquisitor and got wind of a regiment doing strategies like that, I'd investigate them for chaos corruption.

What else are you going to do with a drain on food supplies in the midst of a desperate situation? You can always repopulate when it's over.

I wouldn't be surprised if it actually happened, although such cases would be so rare and most if not all of them probably ended up with no survivors to tell the tale about it anyways. That and I doubt it's Imperium policy or else we'd have seen a fluff source somewhere point out the use of such a tactic in the Tactica Imperialis.

 Kain wrote:
No, no, HERD them in front of you and leave them out to get horribly eaten and slaughtered by the Tyranids, them blow them up while they're getting eaten. Have their parents between the now dead children and tyranid swarm, and the guardsmen and space marines and sisters of battle equipped with whatever you can have and let them charge at the Tyranids to slow them down further as they try to take revenge.

You've put... A lot of thought into this.

The Imperium is a big place; of course, there are many differences from one world to another. That doesn't stop GW from creating a sweeping vision of the Imperium as a cruel theocracy. Similarly, I don't think it stops us -- for the reasons K_K mentioned in the OP -- from detecting patriarchal preferences in Imperial society. You don't need to overtly and exhaustively oppress women to have a patriarchal society (see e.g., real life). It's not like the elements that generate and reinforce patriarchal tendencies in the real world are not also present in 40k. Maybe the trouble here is assuming that misogyny and patriarchy are the same ...

 Psienesis wrote:
Stuff that would be a pain to quote in its entirety.

Damn man, talk about using a sledgehammer to hammer a nail! No matter how much you disagree with someone, you should always at least entertain their point of view with some measure of patience and restraint.

Men are more disposable, hence why men "do the chasing". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA&feature=c4-overview&playnext=1&list=TL1CCwSnExuiA

One man can father many children, so one man can "do the work" of many. Hence, disposability.

Women get free breast cancer checks, there are actual gender quotas for the Boards of Directors in the EU, the "don't be that guy" campaign in Canada implies that all men are capable of rape and women can take full custody of their children and demand a third of the fathers income regardless of whether he wants to see the child or not.

You make it sound like looking after a child is a prison sentence... Surely seeing your child is preferential to going to work? Gender roles have forced men into industrial slavery just as much as they have forced women into their child-minding roles. No-one has won in such cases. However, this was largely, as you said, being changed by women going to college, as they should be. As for women being unprepared, that's entirely because they had their husband to rely upon. Again, this was in the past. The women of the future will not be subject to this, as they will have jobs. So I'm not entirely sure what your point is, since it's only going to get better for women. Besides, surely being the minder of your loving child is better than having to die in war, work yourself to death or dying earlier than your wife? It may be boring sometimes, but it won't get you killed.

Religion, by the way, simply reflects how life used to be. The father works, impacts the outside world, and get's noticed by others. The mother does not, as she stays home to mind the child. A "doer" and a "minder", if you will. Is it any wonder that religion is personified by the "doer"? I'm not defending religion by the way, almost all of it is bad news.

I haven't received any preferential treatment in my life because of my gender. If anything, being male has been as disadvantage. Up until recently, if an underage boy and girl had sex, the boy was sent to prison regardless of consent and age, in my country. There are women-only hours at the gym, any man that's seen with a child is perceived as a paedofile, and in general, you have to be careful about what you say.

See this link for some more points: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=85325618

Men kill themselves much more often than women too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide

Do you really think that they were in any way more privileged than women?

And I'm actually Irish.

Gender studies generally belongs in the OT subforum. Please start a thread there if you want to continue on Men's Rights topics.

 Manchu wrote:
The Imperium is a big place; of course, there are many differences from one world to another. That doesn't stop GW from creating a sweeping vision of the Imperium as a cruel theocracy. Similarly, I don't think it stops us -- for the reasons K_K mentioned in the OP -- from detecting patriarchal preferences in Imperial society. You don't need to overtly and exhaustively oppress women to have a patriarchal society (see e.g., real life). It's not like the elements that generate and reinforce patriarchal tendencies in the real world are not also present in 40k. Maybe the trouble here is assuming that misogyny and patriarchy are the same ...

But whether or not it's a cruel theocracy and whether or not it is a patriarchy are different issues. If a planet promotes free thought and alternate religions? The Imperium comes down on them hard. A world is a matriarchy? The Imperium doesn't care, as long as it provides Guard regiments and pays its tithes. A High Lord doesn't promote a harsh dictatorship? The Imperium's control is lessened. A High Lord is a woman? It's not an issue.

And anyway, the way GW characterises the 40K universe, in this case having lots of male protagonists, does not necessarily translate into in-universe cultural norms. The big, heroic men just happen to be where the camera is usually pointing.

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:
No, no, HERD them in front of you and leave them out to get horribly eaten and slaughtered by the Tyranids, them blow them up while they're getting eaten. Have their parents between the now dead children and tyranid swarm, and the guardsmen and space marines and sisters of battle equipped with whatever you can have and let them charge at the Tyranids to slow them down further as they try to take revenge.

You've put... A lot of thought into this.

What can I say? I'm a terrible person who's already reproduced.

 Troike wrote:
But whether or not it's a cruel theocracy and whether or not it is a patriarchy are different issues.

True enough -- and totally irrelevant to my point. I only used the cruel theocracy part to show that GW makes blanket statements about this huge collection of cultures and societies. It is therefore possible to make other blanket statements about it, such as it being patriarchal (or not).

 Troike wrote:
And anyway, the way GW characterises the 40K universe, in this case having lots of male protagonists, does not necessarily translate into in-universe cultural norms

I'm not sure there is actually any difference. 40k is a franchise not an alternate dimension. It only exists insofar as what GW and its licensees choose to present.

But GW hasn't represented anything about the Imperium being patriarchal. It's one thing for books to have lots of male protagonists, but nothing in any of the books even MENTIONED patriarchism. Given the large amount of females in the cast, and even neo-feminists in Necromunda, you'd think at least one of them would bring up the Imperium being biased towards males if that were the case (instead, even the neo-feminists aren't fighting against male oppression, but instead believe that females are SUPERIOR).

The fact that none of them do implies the Imperium isn't patriarchal. Because it'd make no sense otherwise for it to never be mentioned anywhere by many of the numerous high ranking female characters we've seen (Not one of them ever mentioned that she had to fight an uphill battle to reach her position due to her gender)

If the Imperium were patriarchal, someone would have brought it up by now. It's unrealistic that no one would if it were patriarchal. By not having any character mention patriarchism, GW has implicitly implied the society is NOT patriarchal, because otherwise the lack of patriarchism being mentioned makes no sense.

 Manchu wrote:
True enough -- and totally irrelevant to my point. I only used the cruel theocracy part to show that GW makes blanket statements about this huge collection of cultures and societies. It is therefore possible to make other blanket statements about it, such as it being patriarchal (or not).

But it's a different sort of blanket statement. We can easily apply the "cruel theocracy" blanket statement because that is how the Imperium, as an entity, operates. The patriarchy blanket, however, cannot really be applied because, in my opinion, because we see evidence to the contrary everywhere.

There's two ways I can see to define "the Imperium": the worlds that make it up and the Instituations that run it, and neither are patriarchial. A given world in the Imperium can be a patriarchy, a matriarchy, or anything inbetween or besides. Likewise, the Institutions making up the Imperium, like the Inquisition, Arbites, Administratum and (crucially) the High Lords or Terra, all have no problem with female members. The only Institution that is apparently stated to have some patriarchial element to it (the Ecclesiarchy) has a very strong counter-balance to this factor- just look at the organisation they rely on for protection.

 Manchu wrote:
40k is a franchise not an alternate dimension. It only exists insofar as what GW and its licensees choose to present.

Did not say it's an alternate dimension. I'm saying that it is a setting with its own rules and characterisation, and that the design choices of the people writing that universe do not necessarily translate into in-universe rules within that setting. GW's writers often focus on Space Marines a lot, but in-universe, they are a fairly small force next to the Imperial guard, who do a lot more of the Imperium's fighting for it. Were one to view this Marine-centric presentation as an in-universe factor, one could say that Marines are far more prominent than they really are.

I've always thought that. As a whole, the Imperium generally doesn't care. It more depends on the planet and the planets culture.

TiamatRoar wrote:
If the Imperium were patriarchal, someone would have brought it up by now. It's unrealistic that no one would if it were patriarchal. By not having any character mention patriarchism, GW has implicitly implied the society is NOT patriarchal, because otherwise the lack of patriarchism being mentioned makes no sense.

You're arguing from a lack of evidence. One of the key insights of real life gender studies is that patriarchy need not be explicit or overt to exist. Try telling a feminist that the existence of some number of female CEOs or generals implies there is no patriarchy. As to why no one brings it up in the fluff ... maybe because the stories are not (overtly) about gender?

 Troike wrote:
all have no problem with female members

As K_K already pointed out, the presence of females in positions of power is not evidence for the absence of patriarchy. He used Queen Victoria as an example. We could as easily use Oprah Winfrey as another example. The idea that there is a female High Lord does not mean it's just as easy/acceptable for a woman to become High Lord as it is for a man to become one. If we only go by what the books present, there are far more men in positions of authority than women. If the Imperium is not patriarchal, if promotion is simply merit-based vis-a-vis gender, then I guess we have to assume that in the 40k universe men are just more qualified to lead. Personally, I'd rather the setting be patriarchal than misogynist.

Edited. See note about OT discussion above. Thanks.

Yes, but in the case of there being a patriarchy now or in the past there is actual evidence.

With the Imperium, we have no evidence to suggest one exists. And plenty to suggest the Imperium is neither a Patriarchy nor a Matriarchy, but a place where all that matters is what each individual can provide the Imperium.

 Manchu wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:
If the Imperium were patriarchal, someone would have brought it up by now. It's unrealistic that no one would if it were patriarchal. By not having any character mention patriarchism, GW has implicitly implied the society is NOT patriarchal, because otherwise the lack of patriarchism being mentioned makes no sense.

You're arguing from a lack of evidence. One of the key insights of real life gender studies is that patriarchy need not be explicit or overt to exist. Try telling a feminist that the existence of some number of female CEOs or generals implies there is no patriarchy. As to why no one brings it up in the fluff ... maybe because the stories are not (overtly) about gender?

No, in this case, it's how a lack of evidence is UNLOGICAL. In EVERY society in real life, if a female is oppressed, some of them at least CONSIDER the fact, and you'd also see men consider it whenever they see a woman in position of power. The fact that we've seen multiple female perspectives in the fluff yet not even one of them considered the fact only makes sense if the society isn't patriarchal. The fact that we've seen multiple men deal with multiple female characters in the fluff yet none of them considered the female being in a position of power to be odd only makes sense if the society (imperium at large, in this case) isn't patriarchal. Otherwise we're to assume that all these female characters never consider the fact that their patriarchal society is against them, or that none of the male characters ever considered it their right to have something because they're male despite this "patriarchal" society, and that's just nonsense.

 Manchu wrote:
As K_K already pointed out, the presence of females in positions of power is not evidence for the absence of patriarchy. He used Queen Victoria as an example. We could as easily use Oprah Winfrey as another example. The idea that there is a female High Lord does not mean it's just as easy/acceptable for a woman to become High Lord as it is for a man to become one. If we only go by what the books present, there are far more men in positions of authority than women. If the Imperium is not patriarchal, if promotion is simply merit-based vis-a-vis gender, then I guess we have to assume that in the 40k universe men are just more qualified to lead. Personally, I'd rather the setting be patriarchal than misogynist.

As said. the abundance of male authority figures over female ones can be put down to the fact that the setting is mostly written by men (who may find male characters easier to write/understand) and is targeted mostly at males, who will usually emphasise better with male protagonists and heroes.

The fact that nothing has ever been said in-universe to suggest that the organisations in the Imperium are patriarchial would support the above view that the abundance of male authority figures is due to an out-of-universe reason rather than an in-universe one.

TiamatRoar wrote:
we're to assume that all these female characters never consider

The trouble is, you're thinking about these female characters as if they are real people rather than elements in a story. A female character will not necessarily consider whether or not she is oppressed -- I daresay it is somewhat less likely if that character is written by a male author.

 Manchu wrote:
The trouble is, you're thinking about these female characters as if they are real people rather than elements in a story. A female character will not necessarily consider whether or not she is oppressed -- I daresay it is somewhat less likely if that character is written by a male author.

Less likely, perhaps. But unheard of despite all the books that exist in the BL? That's nonsense. Tons of non-BL books written by male authors have female characters spouting off about their girl power and how it makes them equals. If BL writers weren't consciously purposefully trying to avoid implying the Imperium was patriarchal, at least one writer would have thrown in a feminist character by now (not necessarily a feminist movement character, but one with feminist thoughts. It's a VERY common female archetype that male writers usually toss into their "token female character")

So far the only characters with any feminist thoughts whatsoever are House Escher, and that's because they think females are SUPERIOR, not oppressed (although they;d only apply to necromunda anyways, not the Imperium at large)

 Troike wrote:
the abundance of male authority figures is due to an out-of-universe reason rather than an in-universe one

It's an arguable point. I am especially thinking about Caves of Ice, where the issue is obliquely addressed -- albeit through the biased first-person perspective of a notoriously unreliable narrator who's speaking more about utility in attrition-based military strategy rather than gender politics. What's really at issue here, however, is literary criticism. On the one hand, there's the alternate reality method where you are free to say that the material does not accurately represent the objective reality of the fictional universe. I disfavor that approach precisely because the so-called universe has no objective reality. To me, it's a setting rather than a universe and that setting exists only in the exposition afforded by its creators.

 Manchu wrote:

 Troike wrote:
the abundance of male authority figures is due to an out-of-universe reason rather than an in-universe one

It's an arguable point. I am especially thinking about Caves of Ice, where the issue is obliquely addressed -- albeit through the biased first-person perspective of a notoriously unreliable narrator who's speaking more about utility in attrition-based military strategy rather than gender politics. What's really at issue here, however, is literary criticism. On the one hand, there's the alternate reality method where you are free to say that the material does not accurately represent the objective reality of the fictional universe. I disfavor that approach precisely because the so-called universe has no objective reality. To me, it's a setting rather than a universe and that setting exists only in the exposition afforded by its creators.

If the universe has no objective reality, we're free to assume that there are tons of female heroines out there too. We just never see any books about them. Books starring male characters doesn't imply patriarchism in any way. Hell, it wouldn't imply patriarchism even if there weren't tons of female heroines out there that we've never see.

If you reject that, then it still doesn't imply the Imperium is patriarchal. Let's say that, hypothetically speaking, there were no female heroines out there and the only heros that existed were the male heros we read about. The only thing that implies is that men in WH40k are more competent when it comes to being heroic in battle. It still doesn't imply the society is patriarchal. In that case, any men that rose in rank and stature due to their inherent heroicness did so because of their merits, not because they're men. That would make the Imperium a "meritocracy which just happens to have male characters rise to power because male characters are more competent at protagonist-esque heroics, not because they're actually male". Which I doubt is the type of answer the OP was looking for (that answer is about as useful as saying "All space marines are male because of science!" It ignores the context and intent of the original question).

That also assuming that characters actually rise in status due to heroics outside of space marine chapters. Given the large number of incompetent characters at the top of leadership, even that assumption is questionable.

 Manchu wrote:
It's an arguable point. I am especially thinking about Caves of Ice, where the issue is obliquely addressed -- albeit through the biased first-person perspective of a notoriously unreliable narrator who's speaking more about utility in attrition-based military strategy rather than gender politics. What's really at issue here, however, is literary criticism. On the one hand, there's the alternate reality method where you are free to say that the material does not accurately represent the objective reality of the fictional universe. I disfavor that approach precisely because the so-called universe has no objective reality. To me, it's a setting rather than a universe and that setting exists only in the exposition afforded by its creators.

Oh, is that when he talks about the unique troubles of having a mixed-sex regiment? Sorry, don't have the book to hand.

But yes, i do want to re-clarify that it's an arguable point, in that we can't say for definite if the male writers/male audience is having that major an effect. Though I'd say that it is.

TiamatRoar wrote:
If the universe has no objective reality, we're free to assume that there are tons of female heroines out there too

That's not quite what I mean by objective. I don't mean that we're free to say UM wear red armor and BA wear blue. I mean, there is no world in which there are either UM or BA. There is only a setting, which is inextricably linked to the context that created it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Troike wrote:
Oh, is that when he talks about the unique troubles of having a mixed-sex regiment? Sorry, don't have the book to hand.

I think he expresses sentiment to the effect of the Imperium not caring whether one is a man or woman as long as one is willing to die for the Emperor. It's been a while, though.

 Troike wrote:
But yes, i do want to re-clarify that it's an arguable point, in that we can't say for definite if the male writers/male audience is having that major an effect. Though I'd say that it is.

I just take it for what it is (i.e., appears to be in the books): the setting is patriarchal rather than misogynistic in that, speaking generally, men enjoy subtle privileges that women do not but that women are not as a matter of "fact" less able to lead. That's how I explain the apparently huge gender gap in 40k leadership as a matter of the setting rather than as a matter of the market for these books.

Manchu wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:If the universe has no objective reality, we're free to assume that there are tons of female heroines out there too

That's not quite what I mean by objective. I don't mean that we're free to say UM wear red armor and BA wear blue. I mean, there is no world in which there are either UM or BA.

There's one important difference between the Imperium's gender policies - if it has any - and the example you have chosen, however. We have multiple sources explicitly stating that the UM, BA, etc are wearing these or those colours. There is nothing, however, stating that women are looked down upon or in any way disadvantaged as far as the larger Imperium is concerned.

Also, TiamatRoar's statement is, in fact, what the authors of said universe themselves are telling us.

In the words of Andy Hoare:
"It all stems from the assumption that there's a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or 'true' representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth."

You already sort-of accepted this when you said that you see 40k as a setting influenced by the bias of its creators. The thing is that the handlers of the franchise are quite aware of this bias, and are telling us all not to look to closely specifically because this bias creates potentially contradicting expositions.

Manchu wrote:I just take it for what it is (i.e., appears to be in the books): the setting is patriarchal rather than misogynistic in that, speaking generally, men enjoy subtle privileges that women do not

To which there is still no indication in the books.
We don't even have half the names of the High Lords or their gender. For all we know the Council of High Lords could have more women than men in its ranks.

Are we to assume that black people, asians, hispanics are next to non-existent just because 99.999% of the artworks feature white caucasian people? Are we to assume that the Space Marines fight more battles than the Imperial Guard, because there are way more images, more tales, more battle records about the Astartes than the IG? Are we to assume that, in 40k, nobody is wearing socks because we don't see what's beneath their boots?

It's an issue of a very, very selective focus influenced by real life authors and artists, whose tendencies to showcase exemplary scenes from the setting in a very specific manner have no effect whatsoever on said setting as long as these tendencies are not also confirmed by the background itself. That's really all there is to it.
Of course one is still free to assume and pursue whatever they want - as a franchise, 40k does grant us this level of artistic liberty, after all. The only thing that bears repeating is that there is nothing in the original material providing a solid basis for such interpretation, which may or may not be important to some of us depending on how we like to treat the various origins of fluff. The rest is up to each of us individually. If someone likes their version of the Imperium more that way ... more power to them. As long as they don't propagate it to be some sort of "fact".

Lynata, your usual reposting of the GW spin on canon is inapplicable here. If anything, Hoare's statement lines up with what I have just posted. Please note the similarities:

Manchu wrote:On the one hand, there's the alternate reality method where you are free to say that the material does not accurately represent the objective reality of the fictional universe. I disfavor that approach

Andy Hoare wrote:It all stems from the assumption that there's a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or 'true' representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth.

I mean, you'll have to excuse Hoare for mixing his terminology ("subjective construct" v "objective reality") but he's a writer, not a critic.

The rest of your post is not significantly different from points I have already addressed.

The key difference I see is that in your argument you assume that this biased exposition is an accident, but that we should just roll with it - when the creators themselves argue the exact opposite: that it's intentional, and that we should cherrypick what we like, because it's all just "myths and legends" anyways.

But that's not even relevant to the actual topic. Even in the real world, we shouldn't just assume things based solely on our own perspective (because that is a focus just as limited as what we are presented in the various 40k books), but rather incorporate the existence of examples outside of our immediate surroundings, and what we hear/read in regards of general observations.

"Tunnel vision" rarely confers an accurate assessment. In regards to 40k, this is also why personally I place much more emphasis on general descriptions rather than individual events. See my example on the quantity of battles attributed to the Space Marines and the Imperial Guard.

Is there a Goddess-Empress with her own Golden Throne on Holy Terra? No? Then it's a patriarchy. It just might not be an misogynistic patriarchy.

Patriarchy (rule by fathers) is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization and the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

There is no authority greater than that of the God-Emperor, and it is in His name that all other authority in the Imperium is derived. He is the sole figure of the state religion. He is, in a very real sense, the "Father of the Imperium".

 Psienesis wrote:
Is there a Goddess-Empress with her own Golden Throne on Holy Terra? No? Then it's a patriarchy. It just might not be an misogynistic patriarchy.

Patriarchy (rule by fathers) is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization and the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

There is no authority greater than that of the God-Emperor, and it is in His name that all other authority in the Imperium is derived. He is the sole figure of the state religion. He is, in a very real sense, the "Father of the Imperium".

But in practice, it's the High Lords who run things and are the greatest power, and, of course, they can be either gender. So using your logic, it is not a patriarchy.

Big E is a god, not a ruler.

@Lynata: Not sure if you mean what you are (apparently) saying: that the huge gender imbalance between male and female leaders in the 40k setting is intentional rather than accidental. Yes, I think it is purely accidental, in the Thomistic sense of "accident." I don't think the writers are trying to say "this is a patriarchal world" just like I don't think real life people necessarily intend to make our society patriarchal. But patriarchy may exist anyway -- and I think it very clearly does in the BL books -- as an incidental subtext.

As always, you are free to develop your fan fiction spin-offs of the published material.

It is still patriarchal, because the only reason any of the High Lords have any authority at all is because Big Daddy Emperor told them they could have it.

Patriarchy (rule by fathers) is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization and the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property...

With a male as absolute, beyond-all-considerations, without-any-shadow-of-a-doubt or whisper-of-a-question *the* Absolute Monarch of the Imperium, in this world and the next, and in a position that is entirely unassailable, then the Imperium will continue to be a patriarchy.

What it does not mean is that it is a misogynistic patriarchy. Under the God-Emperor, all humans may be equal (or they might not be) but that is irrelevant. It does not change the fact that the Imperium is lead by an Ultimate Father Figure.

 Troike wrote:
But in practice, it's the High Lords who run things and are the greatest power, and, of course, they can be either gender. So using your logic, it is not a patriarchy.

Big E is a god, not a ruler.

You're getting into shadowy territory there. There were High Lords before the Emperor mounted the Golden Throne. And we don't know exactly what is going on with the Emperor anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
It is still patriarchal, because the only reason any of the High Lords have any authority at all is because Big Daddy Emperor told them they could have it.

That's a bingo.

Manchu wrote:Not sure if you mean what you are (apparently) saying: that the huge gender imbalance between male and female leaders in the 40k setting is intentional rather than accidental. Yes, I think it is purely accidental, in the Thomistic sense of "accident."

*nods* That's it exactly.

I think we just disagree over how much these accidents should truly "taint" our perception of the setting - at least in the absence of a clear-cut description that would give it a basis. There are so many other things where the same principle could be applied. Another example: lots of dakkanauts think most Imperial worlds are quite peaceful and are rarely, if ever, threatened by invasion. Why? It's certainly not what is suggested in the books ...

Manchu wrote:As always, you are free to develop your fan fiction spin-offs of the published material.

Mind you, this includes the assumption that females are somehow disadvantaged to males, to which I have so far not seen any indication in said published material. You are extrapolating based on the number of protagonists / powerful individuals being portrayed in the various sources, yet you are still interpreting when you assume that this quota is in any way meaningful in regards to some hidden social rule that is, in fact, never elaborated anywhere.

And that's why, personally, I'd just disregard it as unintentional real life influence, just like I disregard the apparent lack of black people, asians or hispanics, which - going by your interpretation - would be almost extinct. How many such individuals do we know of? Two? Three?

Psienesis wrote:Is there a Goddess-Empress with her own Golden Throne on Holy Terra? No? Then it's a patriarchy. It just might not be an misogynistic patriarchy.

Patriarchy (rule by fathers) is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization and the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

There is no authority greater than that of the God-Emperor, and it is in His name that all other authority in the Imperium is derived. He is the sole figure of the state religion. He is, in a very real sense, the "Father of the Imperium".

You're focusing on the role of the Emperor, dismissing the other aspects of the description you quoted. The "central roles of political leadership" are arguably divided between the mixed gender High Lords, and how would you know whether the Imperium really propagates fathers having "authority over women and children"?

That kind of turns Manchu's argument upside down - going by the Emperor's role alone, England would suddenly become a matriarchy just because it has a Queen? No.

Again, though, none of those High Lords, or anyone who is not the God-Emperor... their gender doesn't matter. Their authority derives from Him and Him alone. That, on its face, and requiring one to dig no deeper, fits the text-book definition of "patriarchy".

All of the High Lords could be female, every Inquisitor could be female, it could be the Spacette Marines allied with their sisters in the Sisters of Battle... and it would still be a patriarchy, because the Top Dog is a male figure, has always been a male figure, and always will be a male figure.

Two splits here... the implied division of property issue is exactly that: an implication. It's not a requirement.

The entailed female submission? Again: Is there now, has there ever been, or will there ever be, a Goddess-Empress? No? Then it's a patriarchy by default, because every human woman in the galaxy is subservient to the God-Emperor. Every man is, too, but all that means is that the patriarchy is not also misogynistic.

 Psienesis wrote:
Is there a Goddess-Empress with her own Golden Throne on Holy Terra? No? Then it's a patriarchy. It just might not be an misogynistic patriarchy.

For that to be true he'd have to be a man.

He isn't.

He's a Warp abomination, far-removed from the humans he once ruled over.

The fact that his visage is male is largely incidental. The only exception apparently being the Ecclesiarchy, which makes it easier for men to advance. Apparently.

Psienesis wrote:Again, though, none of those High Lords, or anyone who is not the God-Emperor... their gender doesn't matter. Their authority derives from Him and Him alone. That, on its face, and requiring one to dig no deeper, fits the text-book definition of "patriarchy".

"Patriarchy" is not based on the gender of the ruler alone, but upon the standards and conventions of a society. This is included even in the text you quoted, and as Manchu said, England was never a matriarchy in spite of having had female Queens as (sometimes sole and absolute!) rulers.

Psienesis wrote:Two splits here... the implied division of property issue is exactly that: an implication. It's not a requirement.

The same holds true for the head of government.

You've quoted from wikipedia, yet you are focusing on "a male" where it should be "the male". The, as in the gender, not one individual.

From the Oxford dictionary:

Patriarchy
noun (plural patriarchies)
a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is reckoned through the male line
a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it

 Psienesis wrote:
Again, though, none of those High Lords, or anyone who is not the God-Emperor... their gender doesn't matter. Their authority derives from Him and Him alone. That, on its face, and requiring one to dig no deeper, fits the text-book definition of "patriarchy".

All of the High Lords could be female, every Inquisitor could be female, it could be the Spacette Marines allied with their sisters in the Sisters of Battle... and it would still be a patriarchy, because the Top Dog is a male figure, has always been a male figure, and always will be a male figure.

Two splits here... the implied division of property issue is exactly that: an implication. It's not a requirement.

The entailed female submission? Again: Is there now, has there ever been, or will there ever be, a Goddess-Empress? No? Then it's a patriarchy by default, because every human woman in the galaxy is subservient to the God-Emperor. Every man is, too, but all that means is that the patriarchy is not also misogynistic.

The Emperor is just a figurehead at present, the real rulers that wield all the power can be either gender. The fact that they justify it using a male entity is irrelevant, because it does not make said figurehead the actual ruler/authority figure.

There's a distinction to be made between a god and a ruler.

Troike wrote:The Emperor is just a figurehead at present, the real rulers that wield all the power can be either gender. The fact that they justify it using a male entity is irrelevant, because it does not make said figurehead the actual ruler/authority figure.

Well, it does in public perception.
But it is irrelevant because gender is simply a non-issue in this regard. Unlike certain real life religions, the Ecclesiarchy never used the Emperor's gender to push for the propagation and universal adoption of sex-based policies. There's nothing about female submission in the Imperial Creed, only stuff about aliens, witches, and heretics, as well as the general submission of the (genderless) servants before their (genderless) masters.

Doesn't seem like the Imperium matches the definition of a patriarchy even going by what Manchu thinks it is. According to the dictionary definition of a patriarchy, women need to be excluded from power. Even if a society is somewhat male-biased, as long as women aren't completely excluded from power (and they aren't, because they can become High Lords. The Emperor doesn't count because we can't even prove he's the one running things today and he arguably transcends gender), it doesn't match the dictionary definition of a patriarchy.

Again, their authority is handed to them by a male figure, one who is viewed in a paternal light. The God-Emperor is the stern father who watches over all, sees all, and judges all. He punishes the wicked, the deviant and the corrupted. It is by His hand and His word that any ruler, anywhere in the Imperium, derives their power... and, as we saw in the Badab Rebellion, to go against His Word invites His retribution through His children who act in His name.

I think the problem here is we're conflating patriarchy with misogyny, which is understandable because all of our real-world patriarchies have always also been (eventually) misogynistic as well.

However, combining this with the rest of the fluff available to us, and partly due to the bias of the creators, it is implied that men take a more-active role in administration of the Imperium on every level. While, yes, there are female High Lords, female Inquisitors, female Planetary Governors, female Guardsmen, all-female IG Regiments, female starship captains, female Rogue Traders, the Adeptus Sororitas (if you want to talk about subservience to a male authority figure... they are the "Daughters of the Emperor", after all)... these continue to be outside of the norm. The "default equivalents" to all of these factions are male.

This is not to say that, on every world in the Imperium, property is held by the male, that sons inherit their father's name (rather than their mother's) or that women take the family names of their husbands, no. The Imperium is far too diverse to make that claim (though we have few examples of this *not* being the norm). However, again, these cultural variances, and the legitimacy they receive in the wider Imperium, is handed down by the Ultimate Father Figure.

And while, yes, I am focused on a single individual, rather than the gender in a broader sense, it is because for the Imperium, there is ever only one God-Emperor, and will only ever be one God-Emperor. The setting is frozen at that point in time, in that He will have no successor, and even if He is truly dead, and not a Warp-entity of some sort, the Imperium has never had a female "challenger" to His title as Lord and Master of the Imperium of Man.

Everything in the Imperium is the property of the God-Emperor. It all belongs to Him. If you possess it, it is because He allows you to possess it. If you create it, it still belongs to Him. He will use it as He sees fit, whether that be a lasgun, a tank, a shirt-button or your child. All is the Emperor's.

On any Imperial World, the cultural norms are set by the Imperial Creed, regardless of its local flavor. Even a planet that is matrilinial is so because that is in accordance with the will of the God-Emperor. He has allowed them to be that way (and, as is true of most worlds, they will believe that their way is the way that He intended it to be).

While in Earthly societies, yes, there is a difference between a god and a ruler, that distinction does not exist in the Imperium. Just ask Huron Blackheart.

There is no in-universe evidence for men taking a more active role on every level, you're trying to approach the setting from a meta perspective, which does not work. GW is a bunch of pasty white guys, so that is what they write about. Some non-studio (Aka better) fluff is getting better about this though.

The God-Emperor is a patriarch only in the most technical of terms. Whether he has a hot dog or a taco is entirely incidental to why the Imperium reveres him.

I think the problem is not a conflation of patriarchy with misogyny (although this would be an interesting topic to discuss - both are forms of discrimination, so where would you draw the line between them?) but rather a conflation of an aspect of the ruler's physique with the entire culture of his realm.
I'd point to Manchu's argument with the queens once more, but you seem to be avoiding this comparison.

If one world is apparently venerating the Emperor as a deer or their sun, who's to say that there isn't another that venerates the Emperor as a woman? When it's apparently okay that the Emperor is worshipped as an animal, why would it be different to see him worshipped as a woman? And if the Ecclesiarchy is fine with that ... what role does the Emperor's gender have for the general Imperial populace at all? Here's a theory: None.

What would change if He was the God-Empress? Would the Imperium suddenly become a matriarchy?

Psienesis wrote:The "default equivalents" to all of these factions are male.

Says who?

Psienesis wrote:This is not to say that, on every world in the Imperium, property is held by the male, that sons inherit their father's name (rather than their mother's) or that women take the family names of their husbands, no. The Imperium is far too diverse to make that claim (though we have few examples of this *not* being the norm).

Which is why the Imperium does not qualify for being called "patriarchy" as defined by the dictionary.
We can't just make up our own definitions of these terms and expect them to be accepted without resistance.

Psienesis wrote:On any Imperial World, the cultural norms are set by the Imperial Creed, regardless of its local flavor.

Ah, but "local flavour" includes how the Emperor is perceived in that place - and the Imperial Creed says nothing about the role of women.

The Emperor could have just as easily been female, if the Shamens had chosen a female body to reincarnate in. Then the Primarchs would likely have been female, and so would space marines.

The Emperor's sex has no relevance. It doesn't make the Imperium male orientated. Nobody could come close to what he was. His gender really had no meaning by the time the Imperium was founded.

I'm pretty sure the Emperor's mastery of biomancy could let him be whatever gender he wanted anyway.

Yes, even that one.

He probably defaults to male because that's what he was born with.

This is probably as close to the Emperor as you'll get in another setting:



EDIT: fixed

 Daba wrote:
This is probably as close to the Emperor as you'll get in another setting:

Not quite, look up strike Legion.

There they have an immortal God Empress of mankind.

Of course Strike Legion heavily parodies 40k amongst other scifi.

 Lynata wrote:
I'd point to Manchu's argument with the queens once more, but you seem to be avoiding this comparison.

Just to clarify, I was cribbing K_K. And I believe the argument actually goes, the reign of either Elizabeth or Victoria doesn't say anything about the presence or absence of patriarchy in their societies precisely because they are quasi-exceptional. Look at it this way, Elizabeth II is safeguarding her father's line rather than her own. This is because European monarchy is traditionally agnatic; a Queen's descent is traced via her father's rather than her mother's line.

When it comes to the Imperium, as Psinesis pointed out, all authority is traced "patrilinearly" from the Emperor.

 Lynata wrote:
What would change if He was the God-Empress? Would the Imperium suddenly become a matriarchy?

Arguably, yes.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
The God-Emperor is a patriarch only in the most technical of terms. Whether he has a hot dog or a taco is entirely incidental to why the Imperium reveres him.

Not quite. First, it is important that he is human. Second, he is the master of mankind, the founder and ruler of the Imperium of Man. Again, the way the setting is presented is important here.

Manchu wrote:Just to clarify, I was cribbing K_K. And I believe the argument actually goes, the reign of either Elizabeth or Victoria doesn't say anything about the presence or absence of patriarchy in their societies precisely because they are quasi-exceptional. Look at it this way, Elizabeth II is safeguarding her father's line rather than her own. This is because European monarchy is traditionally agnatic; a Queen's descent is traced via her father's rather than her mother's line.

Exactly. Just like the God-Emperor is exceptional, in that he "just is". He has no line, and there is no succession - and if there were, I'd argue that the Imperium would place much more emphasis on who was born first, rather than gender. Just like with Elizabeth or Victoria, the Emperor's presence too doesn't say anything about the presence or absence of patriarchy in the culture he reigns over.

Manchu wrote:When it comes to the Imperium, as Psinesis pointed out, all authority is traced "patrilinearly" from the Emperor.

patrilinear
based on or tracing descent through the male line; "a patrilineal society"
in a straight unbroken line of descent from parent to child; "lineal ancestors"; "lineal heirs"; "a direct descendant of the king"; "direct heredity"

-> No. All authority is derived from the Emperor's position as their god, not as the first male child of some predecessor.

Manchu wrote:Arguably, yes.

Not according to the dictionaries.

 Lynata wrote:
just like the God-Emperor is exceptional

Not really -- unlike either Elizabeth or Victoria, the Emperor is the founder of the political system in question. It's like saying the very first king of England was not part of patriarchal system just because he was first.

 Lynata wrote:
He has no line, and there is no succession

This is both true and false. There is no succession because he still reigns as the Master of Mankind. But there is a (kind of) line, as both K-K and Psinesis have pointed out.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
GW is a bunch of pasty white guys, so that is what they write about.

Yep, this is getting to the heart of it. The paritarchal notions of the writers, unconcious or otherwise, color the setting they create.

Manchu wrote:It's like saying the very first king of England was not part of patriarchal system just because he was first.

Only because his kingship was built upon a patriarchal foundation, though.
Which we still have no indication for as far as the Imperium in 40k is concerned.

It is another good example for why the ruler alone does not define whether a system is patriarchal or matriarchal.

Manchu wrote:But there is a (kind of) line, as both K-K and Psinesis have pointed out.

A line needs two dots to connect.
The Emperor isn't a line, he is a fixture.

@Lynata: I think I have explained to you before that all the meaning of language is not encapsulated in denotative definitions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:But there is a (kind of) line, as both K-K and Psinesis have pointed out.

A line needs two dots to connect.
The Emperor isn't a line, he is a fixture.

I quite agree that the Emperor himself is not a line (and I applaud your visual analogy, btw). But the authority by which every leader in the Imperium acts is a line, from the Emperor to them.

Then we can only agree to disagree. If we cannot even agree on the official definition of a term, we lack the basis for a proper debate. :/

Manchu wrote:But the authority by which every leader in the Imperium acts is a line, from the Emperor to them.

Indeed, but this too has nothing to do with his gender. The Emperor "just is". I just don't see at all where the presence or absence of His Divine Wang would factor into it. The High Lords, which include women, ruling in his name and with equal nominal authority is testament to this. If there were some law as to "the Emperor is a man, hence all High Lords have to be men", it would be different - but this isn't the case.

That's as if I were to say that the Imperium is racist because the Emperor as depicted on the majority of images is white. Does this mean there are no black High Lords?

(thanks, btw )

 Lynata wrote:
the ruler alone does not define whether a system is patriarchal or matriarchal.

I'll try one last time before dropping it. Yes, the identity of a given ruler does not necessarily define everything else about the political system. The Imperium is a perfect example, however, of a case where the ruler does define everything else about the political system.

 Lynata wrote:
Then we can only agree to disagree. If we cannot even agree on the official definition of a term, we lack the basis for a proper debate.

"Official definition"? That's simply not how language works. All language is analogical, a heuristic for comparing concepts. For example, the word "patricarchy" as used in gender studies does not hinge on the presence of agnatic succession. Patrilinear in that context describes not the outright familial relation between a father and his children but the flow of power from men.

 Lynata wrote:
That's as if I were to say that the Imperium is racist because the Emperor as depicted on the majority of images is white.

To be honest, I have no problem with the notion that the Imperium is subtly but systematically racist given the presentation of the setting (which is not to say, just because the Emperor is white).

 Manchu wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
the ruler alone does not define whether a system is patriarchal or matriarchal.

I'll try one last time before dropping it. Yes, the identity of a given ruler does not necessarily define everything else about the political system. The Imperium is a perfect example, however, of a case where this is true.

How so?

A better question might be, how not so?

The Emperor is not only the pinnacle of the Imperial hierarchy, he is also it's beating heart. No one in the Imperium has the authority to do anything without it stemming from him.

Manchu wrote:I'll try one last time before dropping it. Yes, the identity of a given ruler does not necessarily define everything else about the political system. The Imperium is a perfect example, however, of a case where this is true.

Let's just drop it, then. Now you are basically saying "because that's how it is" and expect me to accept it.

Also, this discussion is moving too fast. Dakka needs a chat room.

Manchu wrote:"Official definition"? That's simply not how language works. All language is analogical, a heuristic for comparing concepts. For example, the word "patricarchy" as used in gender studies does not hinge on the presence of agnatic succession. Patrilinear in that context describes not the outright familial relation between a father and his children but the flow of power from men.

I partially agree, insofar as the comparing concepts is involved - however, this is why terms with multiple meanings have them in their respective dictionary entries. And you can't just "steal" a related term connected to one very specific meaning and try to apply it to another when this is not an established usage of the word (at least not without expecting resistance - language does evolve over time, of course).

Note also that the concept of patrilineality involves derivation not just from but through the male, which falls flat as soon as you have a female High Lord issueing commands. In essence, to continue my previous metaphor, the line must be straight and connect all dots, not make a weird bow circumventing all the females that "shouldn't" be there.
I just don't see how we could apply the concept of patrilineality to a political or military hierarchy where, at least going by the fluff I am used to, females in positions of power are nothing unusual.

 Lynata wrote:
you are basically saying "because that's how it is" and expect me to accept it

Not really ... nor in our many conversations have I ever done so ... hence the pages and pages of them!

 Lynata wrote:
this is why terms with multiple meanings have them in their respective dictionary entries

Dictionaries do not keep pace with the actual breadth of language (the so-called "lexicon"). They do not even try insofar as specialized usage goes, as with gender studies or feminist theory for example.

 Lynata wrote:
patrilineality involves derivation not just from but through the male

Incorrect. We've already talked about the English monarchy in this regard.

To reiterate, there doesn't need to be the fictional equivalent of a sign that reads "Welcome to the Imperium - This is a patriarchy" in order for it to be one. We certainly have no such signs in contemporary Western societies (we try to establish many signs that say the opposite even). And yet these societies are arguably patriarchal, despite a significant number of women in leadership position, because power flows preferentially from and to men.

 Lynata wrote:
I think the problem is not a conflation of patriarchy with misogyny (although this would be an interesting topic to discuss - both are forms of discrimination, so where would you draw the line between them?) but rather a conflation of an aspect of the ruler's physique with the entire culture of his realm.
I'd point to Manchu's argument with the queens once more, but you seem to be avoiding this comparison.

The comparison doesn't hold. Queen Victoria inherited her throne through her male ancestry and was succeeded by her son. Her authority was shared with her husband (while he was alive, and to whom she surrendered much of it while pregnant with their 9 children) and was derived from the authority of the British Crown. The God-Emperor became the Emperor of Mankind through his own actions, and has no successor, and, indeed, will never have a successor. His authority is derived, directly, from who he was and what he did. Imperial culture extends from its religio-political beliefs. That the culture is based on the Creed, which is based on veneration of the God-Emperor, is all that really needs be said.

 Lynata wrote:
If one world is apparently venerating the Emperor as a deer or their sun, who's to say that there isn't another that venerates the Emperor as a woman? When it's apparently okay that the Emperor is worshipped as an animal, why would it be different to see him worshipped as a woman? And if the Ecclesiarchy is fine with that ... what role does the Emperor's gender have for the general Imperial populace at all? Here's a theory: None.

In that we have no evidence that there is a world in which the God-Emperor has been worshiped as a woman, rather than as a stag, a lion, a bear, or whatever other masculine totem-animal they choose. Moreover, in the events of tales where the God-Emperor is referred to in some other manner, by some other name, it is has always been presented as masculine (Sky-Father, All-Father, etc.). Even on these "pagan" worlds, veneration of the God-Emperor seems to be male-centric.

 Lynata wrote:

Psienesis wrote:The "default equivalents" to all of these factions are male.

Says who?

Oh, don't be silly now. The default IG is the male Cadians. The default Sisters faction is the Space Marines. The default unit for just about everything in the Imperium is male... we had a 48-page topic on this.

 Lynata wrote:

Psienesis wrote:This is not to say that, on every world in the Imperium, property is held by the male, that sons inherit their father's name (rather than their mother's) or that women take the family names of their husbands, no. The Imperium is far too diverse to make that claim (though we have few examples of this *not* being the norm).

Which is why the Imperium does not qualify for being called "patriarchy" as defined by the dictionary.
We can't just make up our own definitions of these terms and expect them to be accepted without resistance.

Given that we don't have concrete evidence of this in either direction, and yet we have rather a lot of evidence in other aspects that rather state, explicitly or by heavy implication, that the Imperium is arranged under the patriarchal figure of the God-Emperor, and that we can further extrapolate that marriage ceremonies are arranged through the agency of the Ecclesiarchy (which, being Space-Catholicism, is a patriarchal organization), I think that it is safe to say that, even on matrilinial worlds, this custom is maintained with the blessing of the God-Emperor, through His agents in the Ecclesiarchy and the Administratum. As has been touched on, a patriarchy does not need to be misogynist. It also does not need to be maintained from top to bottom, not when the very top of the line is patriarchal in aspect, in practice and in deed.

Given the Real-World tendency for patriarchies to drift to misogyny, I think it safe to say that, while the Imperium is not a specifically misogynistic society (either universally or merely typically), it can be safe to say that the patriarchal tendencies of what appear to be the "averages" of Imperial Culture (Space-Catholicism, 1840s blue-collar British society... life on a Forge or Hive World is Dickensian in its horrors... etc.) are probably "the norm". A female member of society can still be allowed to be all she can be, reach any position of authority that is within the reach of someone of her talents and social standing (or just raw talent, should she be an Underhiver who proves herself useful to an Inquisitor, regardless of the Inquisitor's gender) and yet still live in a society where the male is viewed as the head-of-household, family lineage is traced through the paternal line, and traditional gender roles are still somewhat enforced, socially, not by actual writ of law. It may even be possible for a woman in such a society to take over ruling a powerful trade-house, a Rogue Trader dynasty, or whatever, and yet still be expected to conform to some patriarchal conventions (such as how various Egyptian Queens would tie those gold and lapis lazuli fake beards on during state functions, it's a symbol of state, and stands as an example of a non-misogynist, patriarchal society.).

 Lynata wrote:

Psienesis wrote:On any Imperial World, the cultural norms are set by the Imperial Creed, regardless of its local flavor.

Ah, but "local flavour" includes how the Emperor is perceived in that place - and the Imperial Creed says nothing about the role of women.

As we lack a full copy of the Imperial Creed we can't really say that, though in *most* depictions of the Ecclesiarchy we have.... we have female members of the Ecclesiarchy being seconded to higher-ranking male priests. And then there was Vandire. And Sebastian Thor. Yes, Dominica was a woman, but, again, the Sisterhood *began* as an organization subservient to the concept of the God-Emperor. Further cementing His place as the patriarchal authority figure is the fact that they called themselves the "Daughters of the Emperor".

 Manchu wrote:
A better question might be, how not so?

The Emperor is not only the pinnacle of the Imperial hierarchy, he is also it's beating heart. No one in the Imperium has the authority to do anything without it stemming from him.

They only SAY the authority stems from him. It doesn't ACTUALLY stem from him. The Emperor doesn't personally appoint each High Lords of Terra. The Emperor doesn't give personal approval of commands. He doesn't even veto anything. Not anything that can be proven, at least. Allegedly he ordered the ringing of the bell of souls for the Fire Hawks, ...allegedly. And something happened with Dominica when she met him, but for all we know, maybe she learned some dark secret like he doesn't exist and decided to keep it.

That said, even if the Emperor is still active or if that explanation doesn't suit you, there's also the fact that the Emperor, according to the Eccesiarchy, wouldn't even count as male according to a core tenet of the Imperial Creed that states he ascended humanity after he was placed on the golden throne. Once you ascend humanity, you are effectively genderless. At least according to the wikia, even the line about male priests doing better than female priests is because the Emperor's "embodied form was that of a male", not "the Emperor was a male". (That's a HUGE difference when most versions of the creed state he left his embodied form behind when he ascended to the golden throne to become a god. The Imperial Creed article specifically states that a core tenant is "◾That the God-Emperor of Mankind once walked among men in their form and that He is and always has been the one, true God of humanity. "Once walked" means he doesn't, anymore).

Therefore, you can't call the Imperium a patriarchy because authority stems from the Emperor because you can't really call the Emperor a male. (note also that "He" is capitalized in that tenet, implying that the word "He" is meant more as a word used to refer to the Emperor rather than to denote any gender)

Whether directly or indirectly, all authority in the Imperium flows from the Emperor. And he is certainly male.

 Manchu wrote:
Whether directly or indirectly, all authority in the Imperium flows from the Emperor. And he is certainly male.

His embodied form was male. The line specifically states "embodied form"

Whether the God-Emperor actually exists outside of the shriveled corpse on the Golden-Throne is a matter for debate outside of the focus of this thread. That said, the authority under which the Administratum, the Inquisition, the Munitorum, the High Lords, etc. all operate is that which was handed to them by decree of the Emperor while he walked amongst mortals.

 Psienesis wrote:
Whether the God-Emperor actually exists outside of the shriveled corpse on the Golden-Throne is a matter for debate outside of the focus of this thread. That said, the authority under which the Administratum, the Inquisition, the Munitorum, the High Lords, etc. all operate is that which was handed to them by decree of the Emperor while he walked amongst mortals.

Is that what you mean?

Well, just because the writers of the constitution were all male would not, by itself, make America a patriarchal society.

Likewise, just because the Emperor laid the groundwork for the Imperium by his decree would not make the Imperium a patriarchal society either.

TiamatRoar wrote:
the line specifically states

The line on a wiki? Anyway, it doesn't matter. Whatever is going on with the Emperor in M41-42, no one refers to him as "her" or "it."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TiamatRoar wrote:
Well, just because the writers of the constitution were all male would not, by itself, make America a patriarchal society.

Actually, it pretty damn good evidence that the colonies were patriarchal. That all of our histrico-mythical national heroes remain "great men" even today, despite mainstreaming feminist critques of this, is evidence that the US remains patriarchal. Now, with 40k, the Emperor was male at the beginning and remains male right through the "present." As Lynata mentioned, he's a fixture. And so is his gender.

No one refers to Tzeentch, Khorne, or Nurgle as her or it, either, However, they are in effect actually genderless.

(actually, they're arguably female since they're capable of giving birth)

TiamatRoar wrote:
No one refers to Tzeentch, Khorne, or Nurgle as her or it, either, However, they are in effect actually genderless.

(actually, they're arguably female since they're capable of giving birth)

Their gender is analogical, same as your comparison of the genesis of deamons to giving birth. By contrast, the Emperor's gender is literal.

TiamatRoar wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Whether the God-Emperor actually exists outside of the shriveled corpse on the Golden-Throne is a matter for debate outside of the focus of this thread. That said, the authority under which the Administratum, the Inquisition, the Munitorum, the High Lords, etc. all operate is that which was handed to them by decree of the Emperor while he walked amongst mortals.

Is that what you mean?

Well, just because the writers of the constitution were all male would not, by itself, make America a patriarchal society.

Likewise, just because the Emperor laid the groundwork for the Imperium by his decree would not make the Imperium a patriarchal society either.

Uh... America *is* a patriarchal society!

 Manchu wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:
No one refers to Tzeentch, Khorne, or Nurgle as her or it, either, However, they are in effect actually genderless.

(actually, they're arguably female since they're capable of giving birth)

Their gender is analogical, same as your comparison of the genesis of deamons to giving birth. By contrast, the Emperor's gender is literal.

Only while he was human. Today in the Imperium, saying "The Emperor is a man" instead of "The Emperor was a man" will get you executed for Heresy if you aren't a Space Marine.

The phrase/sentiment you're thinking of is "the Emperor is only a man."

TiamatRoar wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:
No one refers to Tzeentch, Khorne, or Nurgle as her or it, either, However, they are in effect actually genderless.

(actually, they're arguably female since they're capable of giving birth)

Their gender is analogical, same as your comparison of the genesis of deamons to giving birth. By contrast, the Emperor's gender is literal.

Only while he was human. Today in the Imperium, saying "The Emperor is a man" instead of "The Emperor was a man" will get you executed for Heresy if you aren't a Space Marine.

Or part of the Adeptus Mechanicus. Who as being more of an allied nation than part of the Imperium, have their own theological divides independent of the Ecclesiarchy's goobledeguk.

 Manchu wrote:
To be honest, I have no problem with the notion that the Imperium is subtly but systematically racist given the presentation of the setting (which is not to say, just because the Emperor is white).

But the overabundance of white male protagonists is a universal problem, affecting many pieces of fiction. Using that logic, you could level similar accusations against many fictional settings and paint them all as being systematically racist, without regards as to if they actually were in-universe.

It stems from an external source (being primarily written by white men), so it is not really an in-universe thing.

 Psienesis wrote:

Oh, don't be silly now. The default IG is the male Cadians. The default Sisters faction is the Space Marines. The default unit for just about everything in the Imperium is male... we had a 48-page topic on this.

But this, as has been said, can be attributed to the gender of the writers and the target audience, not an un-universe factor.

 Psienesis wrote:
Given that we don't have concrete evidence of this in either direction, and yet we have rather a lot of evidence in other aspects that rather state, explicitly or by heavy implication, that the Imperium is arranged under the patriarchal figure of the God-Emperor, and that we can further extrapolate that marriage ceremonies are arranged through the agency of the Ecclesiarchy (which, being Space-Catholicism, is a patriarchal organization), I think that it is safe to say that, even on matrilinial worlds, this custom is maintained with the blessing of the God-Emperor, through His agents in the Ecclesiarchy and the Administratum. As has been touched on, a patriarchy does not need to be misogynist. It also does not need to be maintained from top to bottom, not when the very top of the line is patriarchal in aspect, in practice and in deed.

Given the Real-World tendency for patriarchies to drift to misogyny, I think it safe to say that, while the Imperium is not a specifically misogynistic society (either universally or merely typically), it can be safe to say that the patriarchal tendencies of what appear to be the "averages" of Imperial Culture (Space-Catholicism, 1840s blue-collar British society... life on a Forge or Hive World is Dickensian in its horrors... etc.) are probably "the norm". A female member of society can still be allowed to be all she can be, reach any position of authority that is within the reach of someone of her talents and social standing (or just raw talent, should she be an Underhiver who proves herself useful to an Inquisitor, regardless of the Inquisitor's gender) and yet still live in a society where the male is viewed as the head-of-household, family lineage is traced through the paternal line, and traditional gender roles are still somewhat enforced, socially, not by actual writ of law. It may even be possible for a woman in such a society to take over ruling a powerful trade-house, a Rogue Trader dynasty, or whatever, and yet still be expected to conform to some patriarchal conventions (such as how various Egyptian Queens would tie those gold and lapis lazuli fake beards on during state functions, it's a symbol of state, and stands as an example of a non-misogynist, patriarchal society.).

You're presuming a lot here. Just because something in 40K is based on something from real life does not mean that it carries over all elements from the real-world instance. For example, the Ultramarines are based loosely on Romans, but we don't simply presume that they carry over all elements of Roman culture such a slavery or communal bathing.

 Psienesis wrote:
As we lack a full copy of the Imperial Creed we can't really say that, though in *most* depictions of the Ecclesiarchy we have.... we have female members of the Ecclesiarchy being seconded to higher-ranking male priests. And then there was Vandire. And Sebastian Thor. Yes, Dominica was a woman, but, again, the Sisterhood *began* as an organization subservient to the concept of the God-Emperor. Further cementing His place as the patriarchal authority figure is the fact that they called themselves the "Daughters of the Emperor".

But if the Imperial Creed was advocating patriarchy, then why isn't the Ecclesiarchy doing something about those matriarchial worlds? Surely they would object to a female-dominated culture if it went against the Creed?

The Emperor is from central asia, not Europe. He's even shown with distinctly central asian features in most art of him.

 Manchu wrote:
The phrase/sentiment you're thinking of is "the Emperor is only a man."

The minute you start referring to the Emperor as a god, you really can't say if he's a man or not. That's why "Is a man" and "is only a man" might as well be the same thing in this case. The ecclesiarchy is very firm on that he's ascended and the tenant specifically states "WAS" a human.


Now that I think about it, you're putting the cart before the horse. The Emperor rules because he's the Emperor. He doesn't rule because he's male. The fact that the Emperor is male (under your hypothetical definition of what constitutes a male) doesn't make the society patriarchal. By any sane definition, a patriarchal society is led by males BECAUSE THEY'RE MALE. If a ruler happens to be male, but is ruler for reasons other than being male, that's not a patriarchal society.

The Emperor is ruler in the Imperium because he's a god, warrior, smart, charismatic, or whatever else. He does NOT rule because he's male.

 Troike wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

Oh, don't be silly now. The default IG is the male Cadians. The default Sisters faction is the Space Marines. The default unit for just about everything in the Imperium is male... we had a 48-page topic on this.

But this, as has been said, can be attributed to the gender of the writers and the target audience, not an un-universe factor.

It's enough of a trope to be accepted within universe as well. Given the real-world influences on the setting and its creation, I don't think it too far a stretch that the IG is, at the very least, 51%+ male, but the "reality" of it probably exceeds 90%, given the preponderance of all-male units and the relative scarcity of mixed-gender or all-female regiments, though examples of both of these latter types most certainly exist.

 Troike wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Given that we don't have concrete evidence of this in either direction, and yet we have rather a lot of evidence in other aspects that rather state, explicitly or by heavy implication, that the Imperium is arranged under the patriarchal figure of the God-Emperor, and that we can further extrapolate that marriage ceremonies are arranged through the agency of the Ecclesiarchy (which, being Space-Catholicism, is a patriarchal organization), I think that it is safe to say that, even on matrilinial worlds, this custom is maintained with the blessing of the God-Emperor, through His agents in the Ecclesiarchy and the Administratum. As has been touched on, a patriarchy does not need to be misogynist. It also does not need to be maintained from top to bottom, not when the very top of the line is patriarchal in aspect, in practice and in deed.

Given the Real-World tendency for patriarchies to drift to misogyny, I think it safe to say that, while the Imperium is not a specifically misogynistic society (either universally or merely typically), it can be safe to say that the patriarchal tendencies of what appear to be the "averages" of Imperial Culture (Space-Catholicism, 1840s blue-collar British society... life on a Forge or Hive World is Dickensian in its horrors... etc.) are probably "the norm". A female member of society can still be allowed to be all she can be, reach any position of authority that is within the reach of someone of her talents and social standing (or just raw talent, should she be an Underhiver who proves herself useful to an Inquisitor, regardless of the Inquisitor's gender) and yet still live in a society where the male is viewed as the head-of-household, family lineage is traced through the paternal line, and traditional gender roles are still somewhat enforced, socially, not by actual writ of law. It may even be possible for a woman in such a society to take over ruling a powerful trade-house, a Rogue Trader dynasty, or whatever, and yet still be expected to conform to some patriarchal conventions (such as how various Egyptian Queens would tie those gold and lapis lazuli fake beards on during state functions, it's a symbol of state, and stands as an example of a non-misogynist, patriarchal society.).

You're presuming a lot here. Just because something in 40K is based on something from real life does not mean that it carries over all elements from the real-world instance. For example, the Ultramarines are based loosely on Romans, but we don't simply presume that they carry over all elements of Roman culture such a slavery or communal bathing.

They call them "Chapter Serfs" for a reason. It's a slave's life, even if it is a much better life than one can expect elsewhere in the Imperium. And if you don't think SM bathe together at times, I think you're not understanding how military units function. Communal bathing is not just a Roman thing.

 Troike wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
As we lack a full copy of the Imperial Creed we can't really say that, though in *most* depictions of the Ecclesiarchy we have.... we have female members of the Ecclesiarchy being seconded to higher-ranking male priests. And then there was Vandire. And Sebastian Thor. Yes, Dominica was a woman, but, again, the Sisterhood *began* as an organization subservient to the concept of the God-Emperor. Further cementing His place as the patriarchal authority figure is the fact that they called themselves the "Daughters of the Emperor".

But if the Imperial Creed was advocating patriarchy, then why isn't the Ecclesiarchy doing something about those matriarchial worlds? Surely they would object to a female-dominated culture if it went against the Creed?

 Psienesis wrote:


And they might. Wars of Faith erupt between differing sects of the Imperial Creed all the fething time.

If one part of the ecceslarchy is killing another part of the ecclesiarchy due to there being equality amongst women in its tenants, we:

a) have yet to see it

b) wouldn't prove the society as a whole is patriarchal. It'd just prove that some aspects of the ecclesiarchy think it should be while other aspects do not.

It also does not prove that the Imperium is *not* a patriarchy.

At this point, though, I've grown tired of repeating the same arguments. You can go on with your version of the Imperium, I will be just as happy with mine.

I think the Imperium is about as patriachal and misogynist as the modern western world. So kinda, but not in any official way. I'm basing that off of the female inquisitor in the first Gaunt'a Ghosts books. Gaunt mentions how he's heard of her because she's a women and there aren't many women in her position. So there are female Inquisitors but they are still the minority, perhaps very few.

Manchu wrote:Not really ... nor in our many conversations have I ever done so ... hence the pages and pages of them!

In all those pages, no! But look at that last post again and tell me how that looks.
"Last try: It is so."
I'm not some small child anymore.

No worries, I did not intend to simply brush away earlier conversation.

Manchu wrote:Dictionaries do not keep pace with the actual breadth of language (the so-called "lexicon"). They do not even try insofar as specialized usage goes, as with gender studies or feminist theory for example.

Where exactly does your definition of patriarchy or patrilineality derive from, then? It's not exactly street lingo, which is where language changes the fastest.

Manchu wrote:Incorrect. We've already talked about the English monarchy in this regard.

And even in the English monarchy, kingship was always inherited through the male line. The concept as a whole just cannot be applied to the Imperium. By definition, it would make a male High Lord's command more important than a female's, or allow a soldier from the Imperial Guard to ignore his female general's command because the male general of another regiment told him something different. After all, the (male) Emperor is still alive, as far as the public is concerned, and the High Lords are merely interpreting his will.

Manchu wrote:[...] because power flows preferentially from and to men.

If there were any indication - aside from the small and insignificant focus of individual novels or the IG minis line - in the material, I would agree, because this would be the most defining feature. Yet the proponents of this theory have so far failed to provide any, even anecdotal, evidence aside from the quota amongst known characters and the remark that the Emperor's veneration as a white male seems to be most prevalent.

I ask again, do you believe the Imperium is discriminating against other skin colours, too? It is the exact same argument merely pointing at a different trait.

Psienesis wrote:The God-Emperor became the Emperor of Mankind through his own actions, and has no successor, and, indeed, will never have a successor. His authority is derived, directly, from who he was and what he did. Imperial culture extends from its religio-political beliefs. That the culture is based on the Creed, which is based on veneration of the God-Emperor, is all that really needs be said.

So you think the Imperium discriminates against non-white men, too.

Psienesis wrote:In that we have no evidence that there is a world in which the God-Emperor has been worshiped as a woman, rather than as a stag, a lion, a bear, or whatever other masculine totem-animal they choose. Moreover, in the events of tales where the God-Emperor is referred to in some other manner, by some other name, it is has always been presented as masculine (Sky-Father, All-Father, etc.). Even on these "pagan" worlds, veneration of the God-Emperor seems to be male-centric.

Just like we have no evidence of the Imperium disadvantaging women, you mean?

The Ecclesiarchy works by taking an established local religion and subverting it by saying "it was the Emperor all along!"
If you can't at least consider the possibility that one of the million planets in the Imperium was worshipping a female deity, then I suppose that's that for this segment of the debate.

Psienesis wrote:Oh, don't be silly now. The default IG is the male Cadians. The default Sisters faction is the Space Marines. The default unit for just about everything in the Imperium is male... we had a 48-page topic on this.

You are talking about the miniatures now?
I'm talking about the setting.

And "Space Marines are the default Sisters" ... this just sounds weird.

Psienesis wrote:[...] and yet we have rather a lot of evidence in other aspects that rather state, explicitly or by heavy implication, that the Imperium is arranged under the patriarchal figure of the God-Emperor [...]

Being a man in power does not automatically make you a patriarch in that sense. Not unless you also establish the system of patriarchy to go along with it.

You're basically insisting on the mere coincidence that the Emperor is male would automatically turn the Imperium into a society in which women are disadvantaged. This is how it worked for the Christian faith, but even there it was merely the existing patriarchy piggybacking the new religion to spread its opinion. We don't have any indication about it being similar for the Imperial faith (especially considering how it came to be) or the Imperium as a whole.

 Troike wrote:
without regards as to if they actually were in-universe

Again, there is no such thing as "in-universe." Works of fiction are not actually windows into alternate realities. There is no reality to the 40k universe independent from its representation. Imagine trying to reach through a painting as if it were a window. You'd just punch through because it's actually flat. Same with a fictional setting. The phrase "in-universe" itself is probably part of the problem. A better term might be something like "in-story." For example, you can indeed distinguish between why a writer makes a choice and why a character does. It's more difficult to sort out the unconscious biases of a writer from the unconscious biases of the setting s/he creates. It's kind of like how certain aspects of physics do or do not function in settings based on their creator's real life sensibilities. These are incidental elements of the setting.

 Psienesis wrote:
It also does not prove that the Imperium is *not* a patriarchy.

At this point, though, I've grown tired of repeating the same arguments. You can go on with your version of the Imperium, I will be just as happy with mine.

My original post regarding the Imperium as a whole was "Anything beyond that regarding whether or not the Imperium tends towards patriarchism is completely based on assumptions. Many of which are quite logical, but in the end, are assumptions and nothing more."

By giving the okay to go with a version of the Imperium rather than what the Imperium is, you agree with that statement. Works for me.

 Lynata wrote:
I'm not some small child anymore

No offense intended. I just know there are only so many ways I am willing to try to explain a thing.

Lynata wrote:Where exactly does your definition of patriarchy or patrilineality derive from, then?

Political and gender studies, having a formal education, understanding that language is a heuristic.

Lynata wrote:By definition, it would make ...

No. All it means is that the Emperor is the only ultimate source of authority in the Imperium.

Lynata wrote:I ask again, do you believe the Imperium is discriminating against other skin colours, too?

I'll answer again: certainly seems to be the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:
basically insisting on the mere coincidence that the Emperor is male

I'll chime, noting that I'm not speaking for Psinesis, to say that the Emperor's gender is not a coincidence. It was intentional chosen by author's. Even going with the alternate reality approach to the franchise, there is no evidence that the Emperor is only coincidentally male -- I mean, we don't actually know his origins and even in the information we do have (which may be "non-canon") there is no mention that his gender is a coincidence. There is also no indication that Ecclesiarchy believes the Emperor's gender is a coincidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I think the Imperium is about as patriachal and misogynist as the modern western world. So kinda, but not in any official way.

Yep, I exactly agree. It's not really surprising when you consider who wrote it, when, and for what intended audience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TiamatRoar wrote:
The minute you start referring to the Emperor as a god, you really can't say if he's a man or not.

That's a rule you made up.

If it were not for the existence of Glavians (a BL creation, I believe), I would suspect that the standard skin-color in the Imperium is "tan". 37,000 years of living in different environments, "cross-racial" (as we understand such things in M3) interbreeding and environmental changes has rendered the common, modern conceptions of what defines a person's "race" as utterly non-existent. In the Imperium, your local planet's environment will affect how you look, but there is no such thing as "Caucasian", "Black", "Asian" or any similar racial physiognomy that we would understand.

 Manchu wrote:
Not quite. First, it is important that he is human.

He is not human.

Second, he is the master of mankind, the founder and ruler of the Imperium of Man. Again, the way the setting is presented is important here.

Your problem seems to be with the English language, not the Imperium itself.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
He is not human.

Yes he is.

Your problem seems to be with the English language, not the Imperium itself.

I don't have a problem with either.

In what way is he human?

Physiologically? He can be if he wants, but equally he could not.

Mentally? His mind transcends any material intelligence except perhaps the C'tan of old.

Emotionally? He has demonstrated a remarkable lack of empathy or human emotion multiple times.

The IRL definition of human beings doesn't apply to 40k. In 40k, humans can shoot energy beams out of their minds. The Emperor is simply the human who can do the most crazy stuff with his human mind.

Psienesis wrote:If it were not for the existence of Glavians (a BL creation, I believe), I would suspect that the standard skin-color in the Imperium is "tan". 37,000 years of living in different environments, "cross-racial" (as we understand such things in M3) interbreeding and environmental changes has rendered the common, modern conceptions of what defines a person's "race" as utterly non-existent. In the Imperium, your local planet's environment will affect how you look, but there is no such thing as "Caucasian", "Black", "Asian" or any similar racial physiognomy that we would understand.

And yet the various official depictions that y'all are using as evidence for your theory clearly distinguish between these skin colours, with the white male dominating them with a much more notable frequency than the lack of women.

In fact, I am quite sure I can list more powerful women than black people in 40k, even though the latter do feature in some few works.
Off the top of my hat, I can only recall two. Do you know more?

If you disagree with this assessment, you are cherrypicking. Manchu at least considered this, which renders his argument more consistent, though we continue to disagree on the greater subject.

Manchu wrote:No offense intended. I just know there are only so many ways I am willing to try to explain a thing.

I know the feeling.
We seem to be moving in circles, which is obviously frustrating.

Manchu wrote:Political and gender studies, having a formal education, understanding that language is a heuristic.

I suppose we were just told different things in studies and education, then. I'm still sceptical towards insisting on terms that go against their official definition, especially in a multi-language environment.

Manchu wrote:No. All it means is that the Emperor is the only ultimate source of authority in the Imperium.

That has nothing to do with patriarchy but with dictatorship.

Manchu wrote:

Lynata wrote:I ask again, do you believe the Imperium is discriminating against other skin colours, too?

I'll answer again: certainly seems to be the case.

Apologies, I must have missed the earlier reply. :(

Manchu wrote:There is also no indication that Ecclesiarchy believes the Emperor's gender is a coincidence.

I suppose we are all using Occham's Razor(sp?), merely applying it onto different aspects of the franchise. One with a focus on the prevalence of male characters in the fluff, and the other with a focus on more general descriptions that exist alongside exemplary individuals.

 Manchu wrote:
The IRL definition of human beings doesn't apply to 40k. In 40k, humans can shoot energy beams out of their minds. The Emperor is simply the human who can do the most crazy stuff with his human mind.

Ah, but most of those are still mentally and emotionally grounded.

You also forget that psykers are explicitly the next stage of evolution, beyond humans.

The Emperor? Is more of a Warp entity than a human being, on par with the Dark Gods themselves.

 Psienesis wrote:

It's enough of a trope to be accepted within universe as well.

Why? A trope does not necessarily amount to an in-universe thing.

 Psienesis wrote:
They call them "Chapter Serfs" for a reason. It's a slave's life, even if it is a much better life than one can expect elsewhere in the Imperium. And if you don't think SM bathe together at times, I think you're not understanding how military units function. Communal bathing is not just a Roman thing.

You're avoiding my point, A real world cultural influence does not amount to fully copying said influence in-universe. Hence, your suggestion that the Ecclesiarchy must have patriarchial elements because it is based on a real world patriarchial organisation is not necessarily true.

 Psienesis wrote:
And they might. Wars of Faith erupt between differing sects of the Imperial Creed all the fething time.

And we have never seen a matriarchial world (or anything approaching one) being on the business end of a War of Faith. Conversely, we see examples of matriarchial worlds existing in the Imperium without issue, and being fine contributors to the Imperium.

 Manchu wrote:
Again, there is no such thing as "in-universe." Works of fiction are not actually windows into alternate realities.

I've never said that they are alternate realities. I use the term "in-universe" to distinguish between internal factors (such as the Imperial guard being far more prominent as the Imperium's defenders) and external ones (writers focusing heavily on Space Marines over the Imperial guard).
So, using this example, I would say the point about the IG is "in-universe" to show that it is not really affected by the external factor of writer preference for Space Marines.

 Manchu wrote:
There is no reality to the 40k universe independent from its representation.

No, but we can still distinguish between actual parts of the story and creator biases/preferences, as in the example above.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
You also forget that psykers are explicitly the next stage of evolution, beyond humans.

The politico-religious notion of what constitutes a human being in the Imperium seems to be flexible. Ask any SM Librarian.

 Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:No. All it means is that the Emperor is the only ultimate source of authority in the Imperium.

That has nothing to do with patriarchy but with dictatorship.

The qualities are by no means mutually exclusive. But your point is well-taken: namely, that what makes the Emperor the ultimate source of authority in the Imperium is not his gender. True enough. I disagree, however, that such a direct connection between power and gender is necessary to identify a system as patriarchal. Like the connection between the Founding Fathers and the lack of a female US president even today, it seems to me that the Emperor's gender, Malcador's gender, the Primarchs' gender, etc, etc, etc, is connected to the relative superabundance of males in positions of authority in the Imperium.

 Troike wrote:
I would say the point about the IG is "in-universe" to show that it is not really affected by the external factor of writer preference for Space Marines.

I understand. But I think this example is not very relevant. SM are never represented as being more numerous than Guardsmen, whether in books about SM characters or anyone else. By contrast, men are always more often in positions of authority than women in the books.

 Lynata wrote:

Psienesis wrote:If it were not for the existence of Glavians (a BL creation, I believe), I would suspect that the standard skin-color in the Imperium is "tan". 37,000 years of living in different environments, "cross-racial" (as we understand such things in M3) interbreeding and environmental changes has rendered the common, modern conceptions of what defines a person's "race" as utterly non-existent. In the Imperium, your local planet's environment will affect how you look, but there is no such thing as "Caucasian", "Black", "Asian" or any similar racial physiognomy that we would understand.

And yet the various official depictions that y'all are using as evidence for your theory clearly distinguish between these skin colours, with the white male dominating them with a much more notable frequency than the lack of women.

In fact, I am quite sure I can list more powerful women than black people in 40k, even though the latter do feature in some few works.
Off the top of my hat, I can only recall two. Do you know more?

If you disagree with this assessment, you are cherrypicking. Manchu at least considered this, which renders his argument more consistent, though we continue to disagree on the greater subject.

Relax. As I stated, I said I "would suspect" that, if the setting of 40K were an actual alternate dimension that had to actually take evolution and such into account, and still somehow made its pseudo-science work, we would not actually have any racial features that we, in 21c, would recognize. However, the existence of Glavians means that, in the current setting of 40K, as written, people still do have Negroid, Mongol and Caucasian physiological features.

Of course, since Humanity settled the stars in communities also based around common interests, that means there is, somewhere in the Imperium, Planet Superfly (homeworld to the Blacksploitation Flicks Chapter), Planet Whovian (the AdMech finds their sonic screwdrivers particularly nice), Planet Prime Directive (in a long-standing war with Planet Get Your Kirk On), Planet Hobbit (known for its majority Ratling population), and Planet Worst. Planet. Ever. (a Death World where the leading cause of death is due to spores from mountainous piles of rotting comic books, or death by crushing when one of said mountainous piles falls on you).

However, we all know that GW doesn't actually take these things into account. They wanted white folks, they got white folks. They wanted Token Black Folks, they got Token Black Folks. Asian folks? They got 'em. With bikes. Hispanic folks? They got them, too. Super-religious ones. Aboriginal Folks? Whole planets of 'em. The most famous of them isn't even Aboriginal, he's from Planet Eye-Talia.

Do I think the Imperium practices subtle racism? Probably, but not universally. Depends on where you are. If you're a Glavian, and a Rogue Trader (say), and show up on Hive World Whitebread, or Agri World Potatoho, where everyone is white and/or redneck, then, yeah, I'm pretty sure your unusual appearance is cause for concern. In more urbane/cosmopolitan Hive Worlds? They don't care, there's nothing really unusual about you.