Insectum7 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I wonder if all these saying that female marines is a travesty and against the “lore” and dragging gender politics into 40K, would they be willing to be vocal in their opposition if the issue was black Spacemarines?

Seems unrelated, since black Space Marines are allowed by the lore.

Okay, and why are women not allowed? Fundamentally, that's my question at the bottom of all this: why aren't women allowed by lore?

Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:I mean, it's real easy to get people hooked on catachan and cadians through use of stuff like predator and starship troopers

I'm not sure GW want to have to rely on third party films which may or may not appeal to the audience they're after to promote their own models.

If people aren't already drawn to Predator and Starship Troopers (both very venerable films in their own right), why would they now?

some new lore that shows them actually being competent would also help.

It's not really competency that outlines success - Tau are a rather popular army, but galactically are insignificant in terms of success.

What matters is representation - in this case, simply *showing* Space Marines all the time. A large reason that Space Marines are so marketable is their helmet, or rather, lack of a face. It's an icon, it's not tied to any specific identity - it *is* the identity. Same as why stormtroopers or Darth Vader are so latched onto as cultural icons - the helmet is a strong form of merch.

Unfortunately, while many Guardsmen do have full facial helms and masks, most guardsmen do have faces (ironic, considering they're meant to be the faceless goons), which isn't as marketable.

Space marines are male because of weird made up biology stuff but also because they're made in the image of the emperor and their primarchs.

They're still not identical looking though. And again, why does the Primarch being male mean that only men can be Astartes? There's no real world biology at play here, it's all made up science.

Plus i'm only against official GW stuff doing it, I don't want the 20 plus kits that would happen because of this.

You'd literally only need one sprue - sell it as an upgrade sprue or whatever else.

If you want to just hobby up some female go ahead, you'z still gonna get krumped by da orkz.

I appreciate that, but some people don't accept that - and I'd prefer that they have as little ammunition as possible when they try and keep women out.

Again - adding women doesn't stop people from rolling dice or collecting their own all-male armies. I don't see the panic.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Spoiler:

Insectum7 wrote:1. One argument goes something like "Gender identity isn't important to Space Marines anyways, so why not include women too?" Which is to say "Gender identity isn't important, but it's important enough that I want this change." It seems fundamentally flawed.

It's not saying gender identity isn't important full stop, it's "gender identity shouldn't be a factor in what Space Marines are, so they should be neutral".
You mistake being all-male for being the norm. It's not.

2. Another major issue I have is seeing demands for changing "creative works" to reform them in "their" image. This appears to be where the accusations of narcissism comes from. "I need to see myself represented." There's a certain (dare I say it) 'entitled petulance' about it.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but are you someone who has ever felt unrepresented?

I may be wrong, but I find it difficult to take comments like that seriously when they come from people who don't actually know what it's like to not feel represented.

On the one hand it's easy for me to understand the issues of representation, on the other hand . . . it's a fictional setting that has it's own rules, values, systems and traditions.

Exactly - fictional rules. Why are real life people being held to the account of fictional rules? Why do fictional rules trump real life feelings and representation?

The more you break/change the more you potentially erode the integrity of the setting overall.

Potentially, but why are women Space Marines the catalyst? Should the setting not change at all from the moment of it's creation?

Perhaps more harmful, the more it reflects 'real life', the less of an exotic, escapist setting it becomes.

If you're not allowing people to feel represented, how can they find escapism?

More importantly, and I'm sure you don't mean it, but you're implying that "women aren't allowed here" is an escapist desire for people. Is that something we want to foster?

3. Another aspect is the 'apparent' responsibility of GW to somehow police the behavior of their players. "There has to be female Space Marines because some players are donkey-caves to group X". I can't really get on board with this one. I see it as roughly the same "enabling/emboldening" issue with people showing up with "full-redband-swastika-IG armies" because the "Imperium is fascist, yo". Or for that matter, the accusations of video game violence causing real-world violence. It's a fictional setting, and people should understand it/treat as such. If people can't do that, that's more a problem with the individual player or local community than the game/setting itself.

Sorry, but no. If I produce something, and a considerable amount of people taking my products are using them to enact or support harmful ideals, I need to question why they're using *my* product to do so, and if I oppose those ideals (which I would hope everyone here does), is it not my responsibility to deny them that?

Sorry, but I take a very active stance in opposing donkey-caves, and I believe that should be a responsibility of everyone.
But, even morals aside, from a monetary standpoint, GW have a responsibility to do this too: making the environment more attractive to women and other marginalised groups has actually only increased profits for media companies that have done so. The whole "get woke, go broke" narrative is completely untrue, and appealing to a wider audience (and making them welcome) shows increased profits and markets.

4. Another thrust of the matter is the 'requirement' that SMs change because the SMs are the poster-boys. Imo GW could just as easily make Space Marines less of the focus.

And undo decades of market focus, cultural inertia, and simple memetic awareness? I don't believe so for a second. Not without investing an absolutely MASSIVE amount into new book lines, new media, new models, new codexes and subcodexes, new factions, and whole new branding.

Versus "anyone can be a Space Marine"? No chance.

There's also a shadow of "If you don't want female SM you are a bigot" that looms over everything that's rather irritating.

If people are seeing that, it's because they're choosing to see it there. They're more than welcome to outline in detail why their points about how "THE LORE WOULD BE RUINED WITH WOMEN SPACE MARINES" isn't sexist - I invite them to do so.

Unfortunately I've got limited time atm, but that's what I can post for now.

Appreciated.

RegularGuy wrote:I I think the best representation for the Christian in 40k is the discussion between the emperor and the last priest on earth, who walks back into the burning church to die rather than join the imperium.

Exactly - it's a single non-core book where an unmentioned faith (implied to be Christian, but is never explicitly named so) is wiped out. It being Christian is never the important part of the book, and as such, is most likely why it it never explicitly named. It's not exactly the same dominance that Space Marines have over 40k, is it?

Comparing the two is rooted in downplaying the position women occupy within the population, and their total absence in the flagship faction.

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'd be interested to see responses from someone other than Smudge.

Have you even looked through this thread mate? There's been a fair few people who have taken the same position as Smudge, myself included. The difference is that most of us cba repeating everything we've already said 20 times already for the 21st time because some new has jumped into the thread.

I have looked through the thread, yes. I haven't seen what I feel are good answers to what I'm asking. I'm genuinely interested in this, but if I'm only going to get glib removed-from-context responses then I won't bother.

Example:

2. Another major issue I have is seeing demands for changing "creative works" to reform them in "their" image. This appears to be where the accusations of narcissism comes from. "I need to see myself represented." There's a certain (dare I say it) 'entitled petulance' about it.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but are you someone who has ever felt unrepresented?

I may be wrong, but I find it difficult to take comments like that seriously when they come from people who don't actually know what it's like to not feel represented.

"You just can't understand, man." is not something worth responding to, imo. It's both making assumptions about my person, and also failing to address the point. So, not worth my energy.

As much fun as moustachio'd Scions look, it was a prime opportunity to add some variation in with a brand new kit when they brought Scions out.

 the_scotsman wrote:

There's generally like six or seven people responding about how it'd be cool if there were female marines between each dramatic soliloquy about how THEY and their sinister cabal of THEM are INFILTRATING the innocent hobbies and VILIFYING and DESTROYING the poor people who just... just want to..... grill........

It still seems sorta beside the point? There's some amount of talking-point-leakage involved spilling in from the larger cultural debate sphere I think. I'm not surprised it shows up, as the issues are difficult to navigate and talk about.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Spoiler:

Insectum7 wrote:1. One argument goes something like "Gender identity isn't important to Space Marines anyways, so why not include women too?" Which is to say "Gender identity isn't important, but it's important enough that I want this change." It seems fundamentally flawed.

It's not saying gender identity isn't important full stop, it's "gender identity shouldn't be a factor in what Space Marines are, so they should be neutral".
You mistake being all-male for being the norm. It's not.

2. Another major issue I have is seeing demands for changing "creative works" to reform them in "their" image. This appears to be where the accusations of narcissism comes from. "I need to see myself represented." There's a certain (dare I say it) 'entitled petulance' about it.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but are you someone who has ever felt unrepresented?

I may be wrong, but I find it difficult to take comments like that seriously when they come from people who don't actually know what it's like to not feel represented.

On the one hand it's easy for me to understand the issues of representation, on the other hand . . . it's a fictional setting that has it's own rules, values, systems and traditions.

Exactly - fictional rules. Why are real life people being held to the account of fictional rules? Why do fictional rules trump real life feelings and representation?

The more you break/change the more you potentially erode the integrity of the setting overall.

Potentially, but why are women Space Marines the catalyst? Should the setting not change at all from the moment of it's creation?

Perhaps more harmful, the more it reflects 'real life', the less of an exotic, escapist setting it becomes.

If you're not allowing people to feel represented, how can they find escapism?

More importantly, and I'm sure you don't mean it, but you're implying that "women aren't allowed here" is an escapist desire for people. Is that something we want to foster?

3. Another aspect is the 'apparent' responsibility of GW to somehow police the behavior of their players. "There has to be female Space Marines because some players are donkey-caves to group X". I can't really get on board with this one. I see it as roughly the same "enabling/emboldening" issue with people showing up with "full-redband-swastika-IG armies" because the "Imperium is fascist, yo". Or for that matter, the accusations of video game violence causing real-world violence. It's a fictional setting, and people should understand it/treat as such. If people can't do that, that's more a problem with the individual player or local community than the game/setting itself.

Sorry, but no. If I produce something, and a considerable amount of people taking my products are using them to enact or support harmful ideals, I need to question why they're using *my* product to do so, and if I oppose those ideals (which I would hope everyone here does), is it not my responsibility to deny them that?

Sorry, but I take a very active stance in opposing donkey-caves, and I believe that should be a responsibility of everyone.
But, even morals aside, from a monetary standpoint, GW have a responsibility to do this too: making the environment more attractive to women and other marginalised groups has actually only increased profits for media companies that have done so. The whole "get woke, go broke" narrative is completely untrue, and appealing to a wider audience (and making them welcome) shows increased profits and markets.

4. Another thrust of the matter is the 'requirement' that SMs change because the SMs are the poster-boys. Imo GW could just as easily make Space Marines less of the focus.

And undo decades of market focus, cultural inertia, and simple memetic awareness? I don't believe so for a second. Not without investing an absolutely MASSIVE amount into new book lines, new media, new models, new codexes and subcodexes, new factions, and whole new branding.

Versus "anyone can be a Space Marine"? No chance.

There's also a shadow of "If you don't want female SM you are a bigot" that looms over everything that's rather irritating.

If people are seeing that, it's because they're choosing to see it there. They're more than welcome to outline in detail why their points about how "THE LORE WOULD BE RUINED WITH WOMEN SPACE MARINES" isn't sexist - I invite them to do so.

Unfortunately I've got limited time atm, but that's what I can post for now.

Appreciated.

RegularGuy wrote:I I think the best representation for the Christian in 40k is the discussion between the emperor and the last priest on earth, who walks back into the burning church to die rather than join the imperium.

Exactly - it's a single non-core book where an unmentioned faith (implied to be Christian, but is never explicitly named so) is wiped out. It being Christian is never the important part of the book, and as such, is most likely why it it never explicitly named. It's not exactly the same dominance that Space Marines have over 40k, is it?

Comparing the two is rooted in downplaying the position women occupy within the population, and their total absence in the flagship faction.

Insectum7 wrote:I'm genuinely interested in this, but if I'm only going to get glib removed-from-context responses then I won't bother.

There's no context removed. People are more than welcome to scroll up to go through what I choose to delete for the sake of avoiding massive ziggurats of text.

Example:

2. Another major issue I have is seeing demands for changing "creative works" to reform them in "their" image. This appears to be where the accusations of narcissism comes from. "I need to see myself represented." There's a certain (dare I say it) 'entitled petulance' about it.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but are you someone who has ever felt unrepresented?

I may be wrong, but I find it difficult to take comments like that seriously when they come from people who don't actually know what it's like to not feel represented.

"You just can't understand, man." is not something worth responding to, imo.

Likewise, people having no idea or appreciation for why representation is important is barely worth having a discussion with, but here I try.

It's both making assumptions about my person, and also failing to address the point.

What point can be made when you make it clear that you don't appreciate that representation is important?

You outright say that you find people asking for representation to be entitled and petulant - and instead of considering that maybe that's something you might need to review for yourself, you blame me for pointing out how maybe, because you self-admittedly don't understand it, you might want to listen to people who do.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I wonder if all these saying that female marines is a travesty and against the “lore” and dragging gender politics into 40K, would they be willing to be vocal in their opposition if the issue was black Spacemarines?

Seems unrelated, since black Space Marines are allowed by the lore.

Allowed is a strong word. The “lore” doesn’t prevent anything because it is entirely made up and subject to GW whim and want.

Exactly. People are acting like the lore is immutable and unchangeable. The only reason things are "allowed" or "disallowed" is because someone actively wrote that in. And I'm questioning *why* they're still in.

or, as you much better put it:

Or we could accept that things change and always have and always will. The “lore” is not a reason to maintain a status quo that limits inclusion and enjoyment.

Well put, by the way.

I frankly think adding female primaris and/or custodes would have been fine.

"Marines are male because incomprehensible biotechnology rules" is fine, in that it's an extent rule in the lore. I don't mind changing it but there's a difference between changing it "because Cawl's new super-implants no longer need a specific gender" and changing it and claiming that the original rule was never a thing.

Female-ish chaos marines should always have been fine- if geneseed can cope with the amount of mutations some chaos marines have, a second x chromosome is hardly a big deal.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Gert wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:

That really needs an ‘in the West’ qualifier tbf - not necessarily true everywhere in the world.

But as noted previously no real religion is explicitly represented in 40k so no individual religion is specifically excluded either.

Unlike gender where men are allowed in the popular club but not women. (And I agree, it’s the fact that it’s the ‘popular club’ which makes it the issue).

I'm trying not to be annoyed at how you missed the point I was making.
When I say "religion is a choice", what I am saying is "religion is a social construct and nobody is biologically determined to be religion X. You might be forced into being religion X by the society you live in but that is sociological and not biological, unlike sex which is biological. Note I say SEX and not GENDER because Gender is also a social construct and changes as society does."

I think it's hilarious the american is attributing "western privilege" to a person from the UK....

I’m a Brit too, my flag is just broken since I started using a VPN - I seem to get a different country every time I post

And devaluing people’s lived experience is uncool regardless - which is a large part of the point of this thread.

Also, the circumstances of ones birth are all random chance regardless. An individual has no more choice whether they are born into one culture or another than they do to be born one sex or another. Yes one is easier to change, but you have no more choice on start position for either.

Additionally, the Imperium can totally change both, which is another the (old) lore reason for only male marines is somewhat dubious.

(And @Gert, I agree with your point I just think you’re example is not entirely accurate, which potentially undermines it (and I’m a bit of a pedant))

Edit: Romanian now apparently

I understand that it might be disquieting to change existing stories or alter them for the purpose of representation.

What I would say is that no one is advocating for the alteration of finished stories. No one is (or at least should be) advocating genderswapping, say, Atticus Finch, or adding trans representations to Lord of the Rings. No one is suggesting changing the famously awful name of H.P. Lovecraft's cat in Rats in the Walls. No one is advocating making the Emperor trans, except me for 37 seconds, and that was only out of a moment's flabbergasted irritation. The point is that these stories are all products and snapshots of their time, and it is not worthwhile to creatively alter them to suit modern tastes and sensibilities.

40K might have its roots in the 80's, but 40K is not finished, nor is it merely a story, nor is it the product of one author's creative vision; it's been heavily collaborated on and market-altered and adulterated by a thousand hands, creative and financial, over three and a half decades. It is a living setting that is still being vigorously sold to people in the 2020s, and the reason I don't buy that the requests for representation are 'petulant' is because you are quite heavily encouraged to invest some of yourself into the setting in order to engage with it fully. The lack of representation is a completely unnecessary roadblock to this personal investiture in an evolving setting, especially one the company touts as being "For Everyone."

It's not history we're trying to revise, it's the present we need to revise.

So Cawl and Bile should figure out female marines as soon as they bloody can.

The only downside to allowing female/transgender representation in Space Marines, to my mind, is that it makes the Imperium seem slightly less douchey, but it'd be worth it.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Perhaps more harmful, the more it reflects 'real life', the less of an exotic, escapist setting it becomes.

Coincidentally, this is exactly why it is so important for women to be adequately represented in fantasy settings

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Perhaps more harmful, the more it reflects 'real life', the less of an exotic, escapist setting it becomes.

Coincidentally, this is exactly why it is so important for women to be adequately represented in fantasy settings

I'm sure the number of females playing this game would absolutely surge to unseen numbers after the first revealed girl Space Marine, after all AoS has unprecedented number of woman playing it what with all them female Stormcast running around.

 Castozor wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Perhaps more harmful, the more it reflects 'real life', the less of an exotic, escapist setting it becomes.

Coincidentally, this is exactly why it is so important for women to be adequately represented in fantasy settings

I'm sure the number of females playing this game would absolutely surge to unseen numbers after the first revealed girl Space Marine, after all AoS has unprecedented number of woman playing it what with all them female Stormcast running around.

There wouldn’t have to be a surge, just a few not being put off, here and there and in time the numbers would increase. In time, people like you would stop saying things like “girl spacemarine” and “girls” as you call them would start to feel more welcome and less insulted and patronised by “boys” like you. Over all the hobby would be a nicer place to be. And hopefully you would see that “girls” aren’t that scary and that the setting and lore survived another minor change and it’s all ok, but if you didn’t see that and you still thought that girls playing war games was a problem, or fantasy super soldiers being girls still appalled you then you would leave the community. Either way the community gets better and 40K carries on.

 Castozor wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Perhaps more harmful, the more it reflects 'real life', the less of an exotic, escapist setting it becomes.

Coincidentally, this is exactly why it is so important for women to be adequately represented in fantasy settings

I'm sure the number of females playing this game would absolutely surge to unseen numbers after the first revealed girl Space Marine, after all AoS has unprecedented number of woman playing it what with all them female Stormcast running around.

I mean, AoS genuinely *is* less of a male-dominated community. Is it because of all the Stormcast? Maybe, maybe not - but having their "flagship" faction (which is nowhere near as prominent as Space Marines are) be openly inclusive is definitely more likely to appeal to a wider audience. So, while I see that your comment is likely deliberately hyperbolic and sarcastic, it's not even wrong. Adding women Astartes would appeal to many women, who happen to be a pretty good consumer market.

And again, would having women Space Marines drive people away from 40k?

I know of at least 5 women who I TT game with on a regular basis who actively avoid anything to do with 40k, and have often said, it's a "real Boy's club". I have also had complete strangers judge me for being part of "that crowd", mostly women. 40k has a stigma problem, AoS on the other hand does not. I've never personally had a single person say anything bad about my AoS purchases at a hobby store, or similarly, my DnD purchases. You are sticking your head in the sand if you don't think a majority of people who know anything about TT wargamming don't have immediate negative connotations with 40k or it's player base.

So as I've mentioned before, a woman going through the same processes to becone a space marine will have the same things happen to them that happen to a man. Massive growth in stature, muscles. To be representative of what a space marine is, the female space marine would have sculpts like this, beefier than sisters repentia (and they would likely have short hair for armor/combat reasons):


Now if your goal is inclusion of more women in 40k (a laudible goal) what evidence has been collected that a female line of marines that are faithful to what the concept of a marine would cause the appeal to women you are seeking? So I don't question the goal of female inclusion (and 40k allows that already in many factions), I question the effectiveness of the suggested program of female space marines as a vector to encouraging female players without GW making female marines something feminine like sisters and inconsistent with what a space marine is, or GW making them masculine as they should be, and potentially finding out after the fact that it wasn't adopted because of aesthetic reasons.

Mind you, some repentia head swaps on current marine models should acheive the effect pretty well ready, so maybe all GW would have to do is issue a similar head sprue.

I'm skeptical it would have the adoption postulated here.

is inclusion of more women in 40k (a laudible goal) what evidence has been collected that a female line of marines that are faithful to what the concept of a marine would cause the appeal to women you are seeking?

I've been on Twitter long enough to know that no woman can resist the allure of a gigantic muscle waifu.

Are you asking people to set up a survey to see if more women would do 40k if they had an option of female SM?
There are already hobbyists, not just women, who have made female SM using the SoB and Stormcast heads. The Angels of Purification project is a great example:
https://www.nomoredamselsrpg.org/angels-of-purification
Nobody is saying that adding female SM is going to magically change the hobbyist base overnight to be 50/50 guys and gals. It's about making a change now for the long-term betterment of the hobby. We can't know if it'll affect a huge change but it would sure go a long way in reforming the general view of 40k as a boys club filled with creepy weirdos who don't know how to interact with the opposite sex while potentially bringing more people into the hobby with their own stories/ideas.

The goal is making hobby and community more accessible to women. Of the diverse programs that could be followed, the program explored in this thread is for GW to modify the lore and model line to add women to the space marine line. A reasonable question is, would this program if adopted by GW actually materially advance the goal commensurate with the investment (modifying lore and model lines), or given the level of female representation already available in 40k, are there alternative programs with a better cost benefit (e.g. making it so marines aren't so dominant a model line that female players who must identify with female models to play feel they can't be real players or competitors without representation in marines faction)
To make the judgement I suggest that GW should move beyond speculation that lack of female marines is a driving problem and that affirming female marines is the best corrective program, and collect real data ( and oerhaps they already are given the attention the sisters line is getting)

I suspect that female marines that accurately represent the hypermasculinized physiology that marines would have would not have a very large response in market advancement for the female demographic beyond the current baseline. I said before, I'm not persuaded that the program of GW affirming female marines is necessary nor necessarily the best/only path toward the goal of expanding to the female player market. I don't believe it is s moral failing to question the merits and neccessity of this specific program to the objective.

Data here would be very informative. As I said, I suspect GW is already studying this sort of thing.

I’d suggest the CBA of making Space Marines not so prevalent is going to be significantly worse than making female marines since, while the benefits would be undoubtedly greater, the difficulty (and therefore cost) of doing it would be monumental compared to what could be done with a single sprue and a paragraph of lore...

 RegularGuy wrote:
The goal is making hobby and community more accessible to women. Of the diverse programs that could be followed, the program explored in this thread is for GW to modify the lore and model line to add women to the space marine line. A reasonable question is, would this program if adopted by GW actually materially advance the goal commensurate with the investment (modifying lore and model lines), or given the level of female representation already available in 40k, are there alternative programs with a better cost benefit (e.g. making it so marines aren't so dominant a model line that female players who must identify with female models to play feel they can't be real players or competitors without representation in marines faction)
To make the judgement I suggest that GW should move beyond speculation that lack of female marines is a driving problem and that affirming female marines is the best corrective program, and collect real data ( and oerhaps they already are given the attention the sisters line is getting)

I suspect that female marines that accurately represent the hypermasculinized physiology that marines would have would not have a very large response in market advancement for the female demographic beyond the current baseline. I said before, I'm not persuaded that the program of GW affirming female marines is necessary nor necessarily the best/only path toward the goal of expanding to the female player market. I don't believe it is s moral failing to question the merits and neccessity of this specific program to the objective.

Data here would be very informative. As I said, I suspect GW is already studying this sort of thing.

Gosh d'you think that might be why they've added female heads to IG, massively expanded sisters of battle, added female GSC and put out many more female models of late for both 40k and AOS?

Because I'm guessing they do know the buyer demographics of both 40k and AOS. and the growth numbers in AOS. And the demographics of those new players coming in to AOS.

End of the day, you're doing precisely what you should be doing if you want to achieve your desired outcome. GW is handling the space marine playerbase with all the delicate special snowflake care that many people of a certain political persuasion love to apply to the other side, precisely because of the vocal reaction from established whale consumers about any kind of change no matter how slight.

Andykp wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

-snip-

Seems unrelated, since black Space Marines are allowed by the lore.

Allowed is a strong word. The “lore” doesn’t prevent anything because it is entirely made up and subject to GW whim and want. The whole marines can’t be women lore originated in the same paragraph as some lore saying that new chapters could only be made on the emperors command, he had to actually instruct people from the golden throne to make more marine chapters. He sat there chatting to folk and issuing orders. Not to mention Marie s weren’t allowed new kit but then there was new LANDRAIDERs, new land speeder models, anti aircraft rhino variants, new load outs for predators, new types of veterans, new dreadnoughts, marines in power armour in more power armour, special dark angels and special vehicles for them and like wise for blood angels as well as marines riding frickin wolves and ones turning into wolves and even one in a flying sled pulled by wolves.

But the lore says they can’t evolve like this and develop new kit so you obviously don’t use them. Let alone any of the primaris stuff! As you are so attached to the lore not changing you won’t play tau, necrons, dark eldar, sisters of battle.....breathe.... grey knights as they appear now or ynnari, guiliman is still dead and the blacklibrary horus heresy books appalling to you because of how much they change the lore. So let’s protect this unchangable lore that is so important to everyone and set in stone.

Or we could accept that things change and always have and always will. The “lore” is not a reason to maintain a status who that limits inclusion and enjoyment. As for race, GW are actively pushing racial representation in their models with out the push back from the community like is happening about female marines. I just wonder why people feel it’s ok exclude women but not black people? Are they as against racial inclusion as they are gender inclusion but too scared to voice that less palatable opinion or is just women they want excluded?

I never asserted that lore can't change. I only assert that lore still requires handling with care, generally speaking. When people invest a bunch of money into something, and a company changes that thing out from under them, people get upset. Right? That should be obvious.

I'm more of the opinion that increased gender representation can be achieved without lore changes, since female warriors of various types already exist in the lore, they just aren't as loftily promoted or even represented with the models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Perhaps more harmful, the more it reflects 'real life', the less of an exotic, escapist setting it becomes.

Coincidentally, this is exactly why it is so important for women to be adequately represented in fantasy settings

Ehhh. . . sorta? I'd think the ideal is for fantasy settings to be of all types/ranges/and colors. Some will be egalitatian, some more geared towards niche audiences. Just as some products are more geared towards women, some can be more geared towards men or even aimed at teenage boys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CEO Kasen wrote:
I understand that it might be disquieting to change existing stories or alter them for the purpose of representation.

What I would say is that no one is advocating for the alteration of finished stories. No one is (or at least should be) advocating genderswapping, say, Atticus Finch, or adding trans representations to Lord of the Rings. No one is suggesting changing the famously awful name of H.P. Lovecraft's cat in Rats in the Walls. No one is advocating making the Emperor trans, except me for 37 seconds, and that was only out of a moment's flabbergasted irritation. The point is that these stories are all products and snapshots of their time, and it is not worthwhile to creatively alter them to suit modern tastes and sensibilities.

40K might have its roots in the 80's, but 40K is not finished, nor is it merely a story, nor is it the product of one author's creative vision; it's been heavily collaborated on and market-altered and adulterated by a thousand hands, creative and financial, over three and a half decades. It is a living setting that is still being vigorously sold to people in the 2020s, and the reason I don't buy that the requests for representation are 'petulant' is because you are quite heavily encouraged to invest some of yourself into the setting in order to engage with it fully. The lack of representation is a completely unnecessary roadblock to this personal investiture in an evolving setting, especially one the company touts as being "For Everyone."

It's not history we're trying to revise, it's the present we need to revise.

So Cawl and Bile should figure out female marines as soon as they bloody can.

The only downside to allowing female/transgender representation in Space Marines, to my mind, is that it makes the Imperium seem slightly less douchey, but it'd be worth it.

There are many factions in 40K that are not Space Marines. Why is it so absolutely necessary that Space Marines in particular be changed?

And if the answer is "Because Space Marines are on all the posters." then why not feature other factions on posters?

Andykp wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
I'm sure the number of females playing this game would absolutely surge to unseen numbers after the first revealed girl Space Marine, after all AoS has unprecedented number of woman playing it what with all them female Stormcast running around.

There wouldn’t have to be a surge, just a few not being put off, here and there and in time the numbers would increase. In time, people like you would stop saying things like “girl spacemarine” and “girls” as you call them would start to feel more welcome and less insulted and patronised by “boys” like you. Over all the hobby would be a nicer place to be. And hopefully you would see that “girls” aren’t that scary and that the setting and lore survived another minor change and it’s all ok, but if you didn’t see that and you still thought that girls playing war games was a problem, or fantasy super soldiers being girls still appalled you then you would leave the community. Either way the community gets better and 40K carries on.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anywhere where he implied that "girls are scary" or that women playing wargames was a problem. You brought that all on your own.

Nor did he imply that fantasy super soldiers being women was a problem. In fact to my memory the vast majority of defendant opinions in this thread haven't had any objections to female super soldiers, just female space marines. And only because it goes against a central aspect of what many people consider the space marines' identity as it has been understood for almost 30 years.

In fact the commanders for my Bloodbound and Stormcast are both female beyond just having female members in both of my armies...

Also what is your specific offense at someone using the word "girl"? I hear grown men and women use both "boy" and "girl" in conversation very regularly regardless of the age of who they are referring to.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And again, would having women Space Marines drive people away from 40k?

Simply put, no one does or can know, but that's never been the actual issue as people have told you over and over yet you continue to either ignore them or mentally cannot process it.

It is a matter of respecting the fiction as has existed for nigh on 30 years now. Space Marines being all male is one of the primary elements of their identity. That's not debatable. Either you believe sex doesn't matter, in which case there's no more reason to change the lore than to leave it the same. Or if you do believe that sex is significant then them being all male is in fact a notable part of their identity.

But the specific objection is that I can vouch for myself and people I personally know, that the lore of 40k matters to us because we grew up with it. It became a shared culture and language, something that you engrossed yourself in and became a tool that helped you facilitate conversation and build bonds. If you broke the IP into isolated components of it's visuals, lore, and game then I know a lot of people who care way more about the setting/lore of 40k than the game or the miniatures. And part of actually appreciating a fictional setting is accepting the idea that it is an utterly arbitrary playground with it's own conventions and boundaries. Certainly you can criticize a work if it is promoting or glorifying ideologies that are driving harmful behaviors in the real world, but it'd be pretty hard to argue that 40k is actually positively advocating for any of the negative ideologies woven throughout it (with the many characters being depicted as trying to be decent despite the terribleness around them). This is especially true of Space Marines in the context you are trying to argue.

Nothing about Space Marines being all male has anything to do with misogyny. You've even inadvertently supported that by bringing up Alan Merrett's explanation of the transition from the C range of figures to RTB01 and how it was a result of at the time, low demand by consumers for female models. So they made RTB01 all male and then later explained that noticeable element while building the 2/3 edition groundwork for what we recognize as modern 40k (not Rogue Trader) But even that in setting lore is layered into the themes of limited societal decay with Space Marines only being male because the technology is tied to the male genetic structure and that was where the Emperor stopped. No one in setting is telling girls they can't become Space Marines because "ew, you're icky", it's just a convention of the setting.

And the funniest part is, that hasn't even stopped women from playing significant nuanced roles within the sphere of Space Marines in recent expansions of the lore.
Lotara Serrin who was respected by the World Eaters and was basically the only sane person keeping their flagship from falling to pieces.
Amar Astarte who is just as, if not more, instrumental in the original creation of space marines as the Emperor was.
Calliphone, Perturabo's sister and the only one of his siblings he actually respects, who's death serves as the moment where Perturabo realizes that he's gone to far to redeemed in the eyes of the Emperor.
There's the Blood Angels ship captain shown for the Angels of Death series who will hopefully be a well written character that features prominently within the plot.

None of them are Space Marines, but they are absolutely strong characters and are central to Space Marine stories without being "just a hanger-on" from some other faction.

And yet the idea that with 12 major tabletop factions (not including smaller factions like SoS or Inquisition) containing both gendered representation; excluding Space Marines (all flavors + Custodes), Orks (who are asexual), and Tyranids (who are so alien as to not represent anyone directly); the idea that a woman couldn't find a faction she identified with because of her real world gender not being reflected in one (very over represented) faction doesn't tread with me.

I can one-hundred percent get behind the idea of more female representation through increased focus on non-Space Marine factions or even significant female characters in Space Marine stories, but I absolutely oppose altering the identity of a faction just because you don't care about Space Marines as they are now.

Also let's drop the pretenses and be honest about what your stance is (which I am piecing together from your posts). Just like RTB01 ended up being all male because of low interest in metal female Space Marines, you don't have faith that naturally boosting female characters through increased depiction will lead to more interest from women. And despite all evidence to the contrary you don't think that GW will actually commit to increased depiction of other factions because Space Marines are so popular and account for a massive amount of GW's sales. So instead you'd rather just forcefully ram female Space Marines into the lore because that's "easier" to achieve your goals, and you also hope it has a secondary effect of "smoking out the rats" so to speak, by riling up fethwits in the community so they get mad and leave. Is that accurate?

 Gert wrote:
Are you asking people to set up a survey to see if more women would do 40k if they had an option of female SM?
There are already hobbyists, not just women, who have made female SM using the SoB and Stormcast heads. The Angels of Purification project is a great example:
https://www.nomoredamselsrpg.org/angels-of-purification
Nobody is saying that adding female SM is going to magically change the hobbyist base overnight to be 50/50 guys and gals. It's about making a change now for the long-term betterment of the hobby. We can't know if it'll affect a huge change but it would sure go a long way in reforming the general view of 40k as a boys club filled with creepy weirdos who don't know how to interact with the opposite sex while potentially bringing more people into the hobby with their own stories/ideas.

See it's gak like this that really lights a fire in my gut. The reason it has that reputation is because a lot of the people who are part of this community were/are boys who felt disaffected from society. Boys with social anxiety, with various mental health factors, boys who were picked on bullied and ostracized. They never learned how to socialize or couldn't/wouldn't socialize in the same way as other people so they turned towards something like 40k to find a place where they could interact with other people and feel a sense of community without the fear of denigrated or judged.

People like you saying that we should cast them out for being "creepy weirdos who don't know how to interact with the opposite sex" is the exact same cycle of bullying and hate that drove them to find hobbies like this to begin with. Why? Because you think that you and your chosen people are more deserving of this space?

It's this gak that drives people into joining actual hate groups, becoming shut-ins, or committing suicide. And it only has gotten worse nowadays where boys/men can be bullied and humiliated in school/on the street/at conventions only to be told that because of their sex (and if you are white, also your race) that they are oh so privileged and are somehow oppressing everyone around them.

I used to be super socially awkward and anti-social when I was younger. That changed because I wanted to be more social and I was lucky enough to meet people who believed in me, encouraged me to be more confident, and slowly helped push me out of my comfort zone. I strive to treat everyone I meet regardless of race or gender with courteous respect until I can learn who they are as an individual. I believe that no matter what someone's own hardships are it doesn't excuse you from harming others, but I'm also very sympathetic to those who struggle to operate in society like other people can.

Which is why it's equal parts depressing and upsetting to see people say "don't you care about _____'s feelings" while at the same time implying that it's okay to denigrate and try to oust any existing people in that community who don't conform someone else's ideals.

^exalted

Yeah, i have an exceedingly difficult time finding empathy for people who negatively affect people around them, even if it can be sourced from mental health issues with that person or past abuse that person has experienced.

If someone came to the 40k community as a safe space where there are no women, and acts in a gakky exclusionary way towards women in order to attempt to keep them from joining the space because in the past women have acted negatively towards him, the reason doesn't actually matter.

Most abuse, bad behavior, hate, violence, whatever, has some kind of reason for it. People aren't born prejudiced against some kind of group or another. The actions that somebody takes are the actions that somebody takes, and the impact that they have on the people you perform them towards is the same regardless of your reason for doing it, and at the end of the day if I'm in charge of maintaining a community, my goal is to have the largest, safest community possible.

I can simultaneously feel some sympathy and even empathy for someone, while also acknowledging that their removal from a social group can be good for the overall health of that group. Anyone who manages a group of real human beings in any capacity is going to run into this situation. It is inevitable.

The people I want "cast out" of the hobby as you put it, are racists/sexists/homophobes/transphobes/Nazis because they all have enough of a presence in the hobby that it's noted by people outside of the hobby. A greater part of the 40k community probably doesn't fall into any of those categories but that doesn't matter because the vast majority of vocal 40k hobbyists who post on social media, which BTW is where most people will go to find hobby-related content, routinely fall into one or more of the aforementioned tropes. Just look at the weeks of nonsense that came about because Black Library had a Black SM on the cover of Dawn of Fire and when they did the sort-of-helpful-but-not-really "Warhammer is for everyone" message. There is a HUGE difference between social anxiety and flat-out sexism/racism/homophobia/transphobia. Nobody is "more deserving" of a place in the hobby, people just want to be able to get started in the first place without being harassed.
To be more on topic, if an individual is hiding their sexism/racism/homophobia/transphobia behind a piece of lore, which BTW is changed at will by the IP holders and isn't some sacred text, then they are creating a hostile environment directly linked to the 40k hobby.



Yeah, that ain't it. If you looked past right-wing soundbite rage-bait then you would know that like 0.00000000000000001% of people go around shouting at straight white guys that they're oppressing them by existing. People are bullied at school for thousands of reasons but being straight, white, and cis is not one of them. But of course, you know that.



Cool, join the club. School was horrible for me as well but I didn't use 40k as an excuse to be sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic. Once again there is a very big difference between being socially awkward or anxious and being sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic.



Nobody is harassing 40k hobbyists because they are white, straight, and cis. People are however harassed for being not white/a woman or a girl/LGBT+/being supportive of any of these people and it seen all over the place that "Gatekeeping is good because it keeps out SJW lefties who want to RUIN 40k ".

Mental health problems suck without any reservation but if you're excluding someone from the hobby and saying "it's because I'm socially anxious" then I am not going to agree with you.

It is also worth noting that I do not hold any kind of special dis-regard in this note towards people who lack 'special buzzwords'. If someone theoretically came in and started attempting the essentially impossible task of excluding white dudes from my 40k group, I'd hold them to exactly the same standard as the people over the years who have done things like

-joke extremely loudly about sexual assault the first time in a while that a female player was in attendance and brought her young daughter along

-get angry to the point of screaming because someone came in with an accent that they found difficult to understand during the game

-follow the only black person currently in the shop around the store, explicitly to 'make sure that they don't steal anything'

Can many of these behaviors be framed in a such a way that a person's past experiences or mental health issues could be pointed to as a source of the bad behavior? Absolutely they could. Does that change anything about the nature of the actions and the correct response as a person responsible for maintaining a social group? No it does not.

 Insectum7 wrote:
There are many factions in 40K that are not Space Marines. Why is it so absolutely necessary that Space Marines in particular be changed?

And if the answer is "Because Space Marines are on all the posters." then why not feature other factions on posters?

Space Marines are, by far, the most popular, marketed, and well-supported faction in 40k. This is not up for debate; this is fact. New edition? New smurfs. Another faction gets a unique mechanic? Gotta port it over to smurfs. Artists on GW payroll make random bs? That's a new primaris lieutenant, baby!

As the scotsman said a few pages back, in order to equalize space marines being an all boys club, every other 40k release would have to be expressly feminine (including orks and tyranids).

In an ideal world, space marines would not be so overbearingly popular that it's an active detriment to the hobby. The game would be closer to AoS, where each faction has its limelight and support in fairly equal measure, and entire editions wouldn't be put on hold because they have to re-release an entire line for their creator's pet cash cow.

But we're not in an ideal world. We're in a world where GW has created a circular, self fulfilling prophecy where Space Marines are the best supported because they're the most popular because they're most marketed because they're the best supported. Saying that GW could do the same with another faction is about as likely as space marines being limited to a single codex and maybe two or three new kits in an edition like most other armies--nice but extremely unlikely. Space Marines are the face of 40k and 99% of the time you see them, they're your generic heroic white guy because it's 'safe.'

Given how pathetic women are represented in the rest of 40k outside of Space Marines, GW really should do both--expand out the female options in other armies AND include women astartes.

 Gert wrote:
The people I want "cast out" of the hobby as you put it, are racists/sexists/homophobes/transphobes/Nazis because they all have enough of a presence in the hobby that it's noted by people outside of the hobby. A greater part of the 40k community probably doesn't fall into any of those categories but that doesn't matter because the vast majority of vocal 40k hobbyists who post on social media, which BTW is where most people will go to find hobby-related content, routinely fall into one or more of the aforementioned tropes.

I'd argue that seems to be a lot more of a function of social media and the algorithms that drive views, than an issue with the IP itself. I think it was noted earlier in the thread that that's "the business model of twitter" more or less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Altima wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
There are many factions in 40K that are not Space Marines. Why is it so absolutely necessary that Space Marines in particular be changed?

And if the answer is "Because Space Marines are on all the posters." then why not feature other factions on posters?

Space Marines are, by far, the most popular, marketed, and well-supported faction in 40k. This is not up for debate; this is fact. New edition? New smurfs. Another faction gets a unique mechanic? Gotta port it over to smurfs. Artists on GW payroll make random bs? That's a new primaris lieutenant, baby!

As the scotsman said a few pages back, in order to equalize space marines being an all boys club, every other 40k release would have to be expressly feminine (including orks and tyranids).

In an ideal world, space marines would not be so overbearingly popular that it's an active detriment to the hobby. The game would be closer to AoS, where each faction has its limelight and support in fairly equal measure, and entire editions wouldn't be put on hold because they have to re-release an entire line for their creator's pet cash cow.

But we're not in an ideal world. We're in a world where GW has created a circular, self fulfilling prophecy where Space Marines are the best supported because they're the most popular because they're most marketed because they're the best supported. Saying that GW could do the same with another faction is about as likely as space marines being limited to a single codex and maybe two or three new kits in an edition like most other armies--nice but extremely unlikely. Space Marines are the face of 40k and 99% of the time you see them, they're your generic heroic white guy because it's 'safe.'

Given how pathetic women are represented in the rest of 40k outside of Space Marines, GW really should do both--expand out the female options in other armies AND include women astartes.

Well you're already arguing for one ideal (female Space Marines), why can't we examine the possibility of a different one (more representation of other factions)? Imo the second is the better choice for the game itself in particular. It seems like the pro-representation side is a little too quick to throw it out.

I think it's fair to say also, there are far more instances of non-white-cis people being negatively interacted with in society than instances of white cis men being oppressed.

Why is it always the white cis male that is the first to cry "help, I'm being oppressed" whenever someone says, lets be more inclusive to different types of cultures/ideas/people?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Well you're already arguing for one ideal (female Space Marines), why can't we examine the possibility of a different one (more representation of other factions)? Imo the second is the better choice for the game itself in particular. It seems like the pro-representation side is a little too quick to throw it out.

Yeah, certainly nobody here very nearly ascended to fifth dimensional living meme status during the year of basically nothing but space marines happening in 40k complaining about how they were essentially the only thing that mattered in the game universe, narratively set up to always win, singlehandedly dragging the grimdarkness of the 41st millennium to the happy brightness of the saturday morning he-man cartoon, and drowning out every much more original idea and concept in every other faction in the game.

Maybe that's not coming up quite as much because it's not the...subject of the thread? it's not the variable being examined here? Also, there is always going to be the phenomenon of 'the default human power fantasy is always going to be the most popular pick in a given setting" and while you can make the argument that GW is setting up marines and sisters as the blue and pink versions of that concept, there is kind of the uncomfortable fact that you've got a fairly hilarious Pink Tax going on there.

"oh, you want the generic human power fantasy, good choice, good choice, this is an expansive, large universe and it's good to stick with what you know. Right over here is where you'll find the....

....oh you wanted the generic human power fantasy FOR HER, my mistake, you'll be looking in this section over here, incidentally you'll need to buy twice as many models because your basic trooper is 11ppm instead of 20ppm and also they dont come in the heavily discounted starter box"

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think it's fair to say also, there are far more instances of non-white-cis people being negatively interacted with in society than instances of white cis men being oppressed.

Why is it always the white cis male that is the first to cry "help, I'm being oppressed" whenever someone says, lets be more inclusive to different types of cultures/ideas/people?

I find that pretty ironic since that's a pretty big assumption on your part, I'm an Asian guy and I don't think most people who are against female space marines in the lore are arguing anything regarding us being oppressed as the reason behind our resistance behind the change. I think the change feels hamfisted and forced for an overall goal that can be accomplished by other means and I feel like the people who feel that strongly of needing representation can do so with their own armies and blogs and doing their own part in the community, rather than imposing it in a top-down way where SM MUST have female models simply because they're popular.

It'd be like if I went over to the Steven Universe fandom and started whining about the Crystal Gems/Gems being clearly designed as only female even though they're asexual in a sense as they're living rocks, saying that there's not enough representation for males since there are no overtly male designed Gems that don't include hybrids like Steven, and all the other men represented in the show are human and not Gems (Just like how you guys say SoB and other factions with female members don't count because they're not popular enough or you won't settle for anything less than a SM with two X chromosomes). I'm pretty sure that's something that wouldn't be supported in that fandom (nor should it be), so I'm not sure why people here think it's the natural inclination for fans of 40k to want to shoehorn diversity in an established faction whose identity includes not having that kind of diversity to begin with.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Well you're already arguing for one ideal (female Space Marines), why can't we examine the possibility of a different one (more representation of other factions)? Imo the second is the better choice for the game itself in particular. It seems like the pro-representation side is a little too quick to throw it out.

Yeah, certainly nobody here very nearly ascended to fifth dimensional living meme status during the year of basically nothing but space marines happening in 40k complaining about how they were essentially the only thing that mattered in the game universe, narratively set up to always win, singlehandedly dragging the grimdarkness of the 41st millennium to the happy brightness of the saturday morning he-man cartoon, and drowning out every much more original idea and concept in every other faction in the game.

Maybe that's not coming up quite as much because it's not the...subject of the thread? it's not the variable being examined here? Also, there is always going to be the phenomenon of 'the default human power fantasy is always going to be the most popular pick in a given setting" and while you can make the argument that GW is setting up marines and sisters as the blue and pink versions of that concept, there is kind of the uncomfortable fact that you've got a fairly hilarious Pink Tax going on there.

"oh, you want the generic human power fantasy, good choice, good choice, this is an expansive, large universe and it's good to stick with what you know. Right over here is where you'll find the....

....oh you wanted the generic human power fantasy FOR HER, my mistake, you'll be looking in this section over here, incidentally you'll need to buy twice as many models because your basic trooper is 11ppm instead of 20ppm and also they dont come in the heavily discounted starter box"

Scotsman, I'm having a harder and harder time parsing your posts, but I think I get it. Especially the "Pink Tax" part of that, too (and another reason to dislike that Marines got bumped to two wounds). This is one of the reasons why I think GW missed the boat by making Custodes all-male.

Which was even more awkward when at the same time (as the SoBs were decades behind in terms of releases) they suddenly released Sisters of Silence, making one of the few representations of women in the model range . . . literally silent.

. . .

But the subject of the thread is fundamentally about representation. Exploring various ways to do that seems perfectly on topic.

@RegularGuy

Insectum7 wrote:I never asserted that lore can't change. I only assert that lore still requires handling with care, generally speaking.

And what part of adding women Space Marines would threaten that care? Why do women Space Marines in particular have such a pushback?

When people invest a bunch of money into something, and a company changes that thing out from under them, people get upset. Right? That should be obvious.

But of all the things to be upset by, women Space Marines?

Why?

I'm more of the opinion that increased gender representation can be achieved without lore changes, since female warriors of various types already exist in the lore, they just aren't as loftily promoted or even represented with the models.

Is it possible? Yes.

Is it practical? No. Not even close.
Why are people so avoidant to add women Space Marines that they're advocating for operations that would cost extravagant amounts and take years to even start being realised, and would still come nowhere near to tackling the massive cultural background Space Marines have accumulated? All to avoid a single word of lore changed, and a new headswap sprue?

Ehhh. . . sorta? I'd think the ideal is for fantasy settings to be of all types/ranges/and colors. Some will be egalitatian, some more geared towards niche audiences. Just as some products are more geared towards women, some can be more geared towards men or even aimed at teenage boys.

Why? Why is that? (And for what it's worth, I don't support any product being "geared towards" a group by directly excluding others - which is exactly what Space Marines do).

And why would adding women Space Marines take it away from being geared towards boys?

There are many factions in 40K that are not Space Marines. Why is it so absolutely necessary that Space Marines in particular be changed?

Because Space Marines are Space Marines, you know, the most iconic GW property by this point.

And if the answer is "Because Space Marines are on all the posters." then why not feature other factions on posters?

Have you considered the massive cultural weight behind what Space Marines are? Even *if*, after thousands upon thousands of pounds, GW were able to, on paper, make every faction equal, with massive swathes of Black Library books to rival the Horus Heresy (a Space Marine dominated fiction), models and rules and marketing that was all perfectly balanced - you'd still have to deal with the fact that Space Marines will still be the most iconic 40k property for years to come. Rebranding so completely, so utterly to remove that posterboy smell, would take *years*, if not decades, to remove that "40k = Space Marines" mentality.

As opposed to "hey, you can put women's heads on your plastic dollies now"? One is so laughably easier, faster, and cost-effective that I wonder why it would even be a problem in the first place.

@Jack Flask

Insectum7 wrote:Well you're already arguing for one ideal (female Space Marines), why can't we examine the possibility of a different one (more representation of other factions)? Imo the second is the better choice for the game itself in particular. It seems like the pro-representation side is a little too quick to throw it out.

I think I've gone into very good detail, repeatedly, about how adding a new sprue and changing a single line of lore is vastly VASTLY cheaper, quicker, and easier than redesigning nearly every other faction.
You say it's better for the game - in what way?

And regarding stuff being thrown out too quickly, I could say the same about the pro-representation's side - how simply changing one line of lore is treated so awfully.

Grimskul wrote:I think the change feels hamfisted and forced for an overall goal that can be accomplished by other means

Can, yes. Practically, no. I've outlined why several times, I really don't want to repeat that.

and I feel like the people who feel that strongly of needing representation can do so with their own armies and blogs and doing their own part in the community,

Have you seen what happens when people do make their own women Astartes armies and blog and art? Because it's not exactly well accepted.

It'd be like if I went over to the Steven Universe fandom and started whining about the Crystal Gems/Gems being clearly designed as only female even though they're asexual in a sense as they're living rocks, saying that there's not enough representation for males since there are no overtly male designed Gems that don't include hybrids like Steven, and all the other men represented in the show are human and not Gems (Just like how you guys say SoB and other factions with female members don't count because they're not popular enough or you won't settle for anything less than a SM with two X chromosomes).

As someone unfamiliar with Steven Universe, is there a market of people calling for male representation in the Gems? If the Gems represent such a major part of the show (and considering Steven seems to be protagonist, I think that Gems don't occupy the same dominance that Space Marines do), then yes, they could do with representation.

No objection there.

I'm pretty sure that's something that wouldn't be supported in that fandom (nor should it be), so I'm not sure why people here think it's the natural inclination for fans of 40k to want to shoehorn diversity in an established faction whose identity includes not having that kind of diversity to begin with.

But their identity isn't based on their lack of diversity. It's based on being super strong, super durable, super heroic supersoldiers. Them being men isn't something GW focus on in their fluff about them.

Insectum7 wrote:But the subject of the thread is fundamentally about representation. Exploring various ways to do that seems perfectly on topic.

Agreed. And I think I've explained why doing so via having to make thousands and thousands of pounds worth of factions, models, fiction and marketing is a tad harder than "anyone can become a Space Marine" and a headswap.

Is the lore so important that it's worth those thousands and thousands of pounds to redesign everything else? Is the lore so important that it trumps a woman wanting representation in the faction she likes?

Why is the lore more important than real human beings?

What's this Angels of Purification you mention?

I've not heard of it.

JNAProductions wrote:What's this Angels of Purification you mention?

I've not heard of it.

It's a community built Chapter of all-women Astartes, created exactly for the reasons illustrated above, because many women felt they wanted representation, and created their own Chapter to do it. Gert linked it here:

Gert wrote:There are already hobbyists, not just women, who have made female SM using the SoB and Stormcast heads. The Angels of Purification project is a great example:
https://www.nomoredamselsrpg.org/angels-of-purification

The issue is that it's all well and good to do this, I have to ask why it can't be official?

 Jack Flask wrote:
Also what is your specific offense at someone using the word "girl"? I hear grown men and women use both "boy" and "girl" in conversation very regularly regardless of the age of who they are referring to.

Go out and try calling some black men "boys" and let us know how that goes for you. There is a wider context you seem unaware of, as a *generous* reading.

 Jack Flask wrote:
But the specific objection is that I can vouch for myself and people I personally know, that the lore of 40k matters to us because we grew up with it. It became a shared culture and language

I went to school with people that grew up in apartheid South Africa. Growing up with a shared culture does not make that culture worth sustaining.

ETA: At that time (because I was young and stupid) I was against the sports embargo on the SA regime because "sport should be aploitical" and similar placations. I got over that by immersing myself in the wider context and functionally addressing my totally unthreatened position of privilege on the matter.

Meanwhile, my (school) Housemate, Kobi was developing a reputation as violent and troublemaking because he responded with force to being called a [see forum posting rules]. Because it worked, and because that's what the culture demanded of him, again, out of whack to what it asked of any of us white boys. Cultural inertia? Bollocks.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The issue is that it's all well and good to do this, I have to ask why it can't be official?

The amount of bile and vitriol that got hurled at the people involved in the project was insane. The pathetic arguments that opponents brought up were just depressing to read, someone even said the project was pro-white supremacy/Nazi because "Purification" was in the name and the colour scheme was red and black when the project was created by a group of LGBT+ folks, y'know people who are famously not Nazis.
It's also a charity project with the mini's made for it getting auctioned off with the proceeds getting donated. It only did good things and people still came after it because it had wiminz Space Marines.

How very dare they exist and hobby.

It's the unsaid part. Suzie not welcome. Treehouse sacrosanct.

I am a cis White straight male, so none of those factors really led to any bullying or exclusion during school and therefore I would not be able to relate in that fashion.But I was quite socially awkward and very much a nerd which left me on pretty much the bottom rung of school society. I feel like that experience has giving me the compassion to want to include people as much into this Hobby. We should be gathering all that want to join, not be vendictive gatekeepers. We can have both the boy and girl clubs with grey knights (since they don't do primarius) and sisters of battle.

I also see arguments saying that it is wrong to change someone else's creative work. That's not what's happening in this case. No one's looking at Gaunt's Ghosts series and saying well we're going to force Dan to change Gaunt into a female. They are looking to add on to the lore by having a character known for changing the status Quo do just that.

Edit1 grammer

Edit2: I also tend to agree that space Marines are the most versatile faction for customization. There's no other faction that allows you such a blank canvas to create on easily. Yes the guard probably have more flavor to them but the models as supported by Games workshop are just not there. And when it comes to sisters they suffer the same thing as custodians they have too much baked in iconography and flare that it's hard to give your faction a different look other than paint. Conversely Marines have giant smooth broad shapes and therefore it's very easy to add on small iconography and customize the characters. Their joints and connection points are also pretty decent for moving and reshaping the models.

When Gaunt has nearly 50% of the focus of the entire game/lore, then he might be an apt example. As it is, Gaunt has 11-12 books, and 1 model release. His entire unit is of mixed gender, so again, moot point. The Space marines in 9th alone are over 50% of the model releases, and the majority of the fluff.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Perhaps more harmful, the more it reflects 'real life', the less of an exotic, escapist setting it becomes.

Coincidentally, this is exactly why it is so important for women to be adequately represented in fantasy settings

I'm sure the number of females playing this game would absolutely surge to unseen numbers after the first revealed girl Space Marine, after all AoS has unprecedented number of woman playing it what with all them female Stormcast running around.

I mean, AoS genuinely *is* less of a male-dominated community. Is it because of all the Stormcast? Maybe, maybe not - but having their "flagship" faction (which is nowhere near as prominent as Space Marines are) be openly inclusive is definitely more likely to appeal to a wider audience. So, while I see that your comment is likely deliberately hyperbolic and sarcastic, it's not even wrong. Adding women Astartes would appeal to many women, who happen to be a pretty good consumer market.

And again, would having women Space Marines drive people away from 40k?

I made that comment thinking that AoS and 40k probably had similar demographics playing them, in other words SM don't need to change because a similar game with arguably better representation does not attract more females. Now if it is indeed true that AoS somehow has more female players then by all means change the way 40k is represented. But by that I mean/prefer feature SoB or DE more in promotional materials don't just change the lore for it. Would having female SM drive me away? Unlikely since Primaris didn't do that and I detest them too, but then again I neither play SM nor plan on doing so. If they start messing with my DG lore that's another story.

There wouldn’t have to be a surge, just a few not being put off, here and there and in time the numbers would increase. In time, people like you would stop saying things like “girl spacemarine” and “girls” as you call them would start to feel more welcome and less insulted and patronised by “boys” like you. Over all the hobby would be a nicer place to be. And hopefully you would see that “girls” aren’t that scary and that the setting and lore survived another minor change and it’s all ok, but if you didn’t see that and you still thought that girls playing war games was a problem, or fantasy super soldiers being girls still appalled you then you would leave the community. Either way the community gets better and 40K carries on.

I call it that because changing established lore for silly reasons is something I despise. If it only increases engagement from outsiders by a small amount why bother changing what you have. I also prefer you not put words/ideas in my mouth. I have nothing against woman/girls neither as persons nor as gamers. Every opponent is the same as far as I'm concerned, an opportunity for a fun game and a challenge to overcome. Not too mention the game and community will carry on without needless changes so why bother doing them.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
When Gaunt has nearly 50% of the focus of the entire game/lore, then he might be an apt example. As it is, Gaunt has 11-12 books, and 1 model release. His entire unit is of mixed gender, so again, moot point. The Space marines in 9th alone are over 50% of the model releases, and the majority of the fluff.

My whole point wasn't about how popular it was I am generally on the side that space Marines are popular enough that they should be mixed gender. My reaction was to the people saying "that it's forcing an artist to change their creative work to fit a narrative". And my counterpoint to that was the fact that that's not what they're doing. We're asking for an update on the setting that is well within the realm of what games workshop has already done to the setting by including women as Marines.


There is no one artist and storyline that takes up 50% of the lore. So any example of a person or storyline I brought up won't fit that criteria. And because of that there is no one creative mind that owns the intellectual property of Warhammer as a whole. Therefore it has the room to change and grow as we've seen with the introduction of thunder wolf Calvary and primaris Marines and the new sister bot things I can't remember the name of them.

 Insectum7 wrote:
There are many factions in 40K that are not Space Marines. Why is it so absolutely necessary that Space Marines in particular be changed?

Make no mistake: It should apply to Marines because it should apply to everyone. Marines are the topic of the conversation since they're the most prominent example, most prominent problem, and are a case of women not existing in the lore (as opposed to the sadly numerous cases of women existing within the lore of the faction but not having models, which is a problem that also needs solving); that said, I feel gender representation should be in every faction.*

I've made female and feminine Marines, but this goes both ways: I've made male Daemonettes and mixed them in with female/intersex ones. While Guilliman is going around being sensible at things, I'd be cool with him going "Okay, the Decree Passive is a bit dated" and allow Orders to opt into male Sororitas if they're willing to wear the silly haircuts.

Again, the cost is making the Imperium seem slightly less awful, but I think that cost is worth it; 'misogyny' - to my admittedly incomplete knowledge, someone can feel free to correct me on this point - isn't usually played up as one of the Imperium's biggest faults.

*At the very least all human Imperium/Chaos factions. Nids are pretty straight-up exempt, Orks have "Ork" for a sex even if they have masculine for a gender and I could be talked 'round either way on that one, and while I know Necrons have women, I honestly have no idea what a female Necron looks like or if that distinction was made when they were being Biotransferred; you could tell me half of them were and I'd really have no basis to dispute that.**

**Which kind of is why the lack of female Marines in the lore is so galling - It's so easy to fix. Their armor is so thick you could tell me half of them were women and I'd have only so much basis to dispute that, so why can't GW just write up a handful of women special characters and say 'okay, they exist now because Cawl/Primaris/Etc?'

I agree they definitely have to work on the representation in factions that are already supposed to have female characters. Not that I particularly want to see more special characters but they could at least be a couple sprinkled in. At least within the case of Admech you do have to name them otherwise you can possibly tell if they're male or female. And the rest of the lines could just get proper model updates like what we're seeing with the guard heads. Even if they are a bit lazy.

And all that could be released alongside a sprue with female heads for marines.

 CEO Kasen wrote:
I've made female and feminine Marines, but this goes both ways: I've made male Daemonettes and mixed them in with female/intersex ones. While Guilliman is going around being sensible at things, I'd be cool with him going "Okay, the Decree Passive is a bit dated" and allow Orders to opt into male Sororitas if they're willing to wear the silly haircuts.

Funnily enough, I've been thinking about the Decree Passive a bit over the course of this discussion, and it struck me that not only is it more than a little dated, it doesn't actually make any sense.

From a real world point of view, the Decree Passive was directly born from the inherent sexism of the 80's and '90s. It's a 'joke' that works because we're all supposed to assume that soldiers are men by default, which is the only thing that allows the theoretically more or less egalitarian Imperium having a rule stating that the church can't have 'men at arms' to be logical. And in the early '90's, when soldiers were still by and large men by default, that sort of worked. But by today's standards, it's a 'joke' that doesn't date well, and by the standards of the 41st millennium it's an outright anachronism.

The other part is that in an Imperium where the Inquisition is quick to jump on even their own kind for so much as considering dipping a toe outside the rules (as any given Inquisitor chooses to interpret them), the fact that some member of the church would have got away with raising an army on such a flimsy justification seems more than a little unlikely, and it certainly wouldn't have lasted long enough to build any sizeable force out of it, before some Inquisitor or higher-up with the Ecclesiarchy wandered in and said 'Yes, ok, very funny. Now tell them to put the guns away and go home, or I will stab you.'

Which isn't to say that I have a problem with Sisters of Battle being a thing (while also not being opposed to them being opened out into a general 'Soldiers of the Ecclesiarchy' that allows men as well) .... just that a sexist joke from the '90s that was never intended to really hold up under scrutiny (because nobody back then took the background of the game that seriously) has more than exceeded its use by date, and Sisters need a better reason for existing than 'Hah hah, they're not men, see!'


I feel like, overall, it would be better to change Marines to being either gender, and rework Sisters into a Grey Knight-style Marine Chapter that works directly for the church, with direct supervision by the Inquisition to make sure that no uppity church official chooses to use them for their own ends. As they're a special case, they can still have their unique styling in the same way that Grey Knights do, but they make much more sense than the current set-up.

Des702 wrote:
I am a cis White straight male, so none of those factors really led to any bullying or exclusion during school and therefore I would not be able to relate in that fashion.But I was quite socially awkward and very much a nerd which left me on pretty much the bottom rung of school society.

No, it did not. The fact that you don't recognise that is in and of itself damning. Was it worse to be in the same place but also a girl, to be queer, to be black... you don't care. You are the bottom rung. No way anybody could have it worse than you.

You're either wrong or lying, because there's ALWAYS a worse place to go, if only you could muster the empathy.

I'd rather you were wrong and willing to talk about it.

Catulle wrote:

Des702 wrote:
I am a cis White straight male, so none of those factors really led to any bullying or exclusion during school and therefore I would not be able to relate in that fashion.But I was quite socially awkward and very much a nerd which left me on pretty much the bottom rung of school society.

No, it did not. The fact that you don't recognise that is in and of itself damning. Was it worse to be in the same place but also a girl, to be queer, to be black... you don't care. You are the bottom rung. No way anybody could have it worse than you.

You're either wrong or lying, because there's ALWAYS a worse place to go, if only you could muster the empathy.

I'm sorry I'm a bit confused first of all I didn't say I was the bottom rung but I felt like I was on pretty much on the bottom rung within the school hierarchy. Are we here to quantify and compare different people's experiences? And save someone is more worthy of exclusion or less worthy of exclusion feelings?

And I'm not sure what you mean by I don't care I'm on the side of adding women to space Marines for the sheer fact it would make people feel more included.

I literally talked about how as nerds we all have a shared collected feeling of being excluded whether how high or small it is and why can't we funnel that into bringing us together regardless of which group and making sure everyone feels included. And how gatekeeping is a bad thing and then your gatekeeping my misery. I didn't say I had it the worst out of everybody. And I very much explicitly said that I didn't experience the point of views of the of what I'm not but that I empathize with the struggles.

Des702 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

Des702 wrote:
I am a cis White straight male, so none of those factors really led to any bullying or exclusion during school and therefore I would not be able to relate in that fashion.But I was quite socially awkward and very much a nerd which left me on pretty much the bottom rung of school society.

No, it did not. The fact that you don't recognise that is in and of itself damning. Was it worse to be in the same place but also a girl, to be queer, to be black... you don't care. You are the bottom rung. No way anybody could have it worse than you.

You're either wrong or lying, because there's ALWAYS a worse place to go, if only you could muster the empathy.

I'm sorry I'm a bit confused first of all I didn't say I was the bottom rung but I felt like I was on pretty much on the bottom rung within the school hierarchy. Are we here to quantify and compare different people's experiences?

Okay, fine you don't give a damn. So boring, so very average. "Pretty much the bottom rung" (if you exclude race, sex, sexuality and gender identity) GOOD GOD YOU WERE SO BRAVE. Jesus, I could be "pretty much" the cleverest boy in the United Kingdom by those standards. Do please feth right off. Or come up with something either original, relevant or... preferably, both.

Catulle wrote:

Des702 wrote:
I am a cis White straight male, so none of those factors really led to any bullying or exclusion during school and therefore I would not be able to relate in that fashion.But I was quite socially awkward and very much a nerd which left me on pretty much the bottom rung of school society.

No, it did not. The fact that you don't recognise that is in and of itself damning. Was it worse to be in the same place but also a girl, to be queer, to be black... you don't care. You are the bottom rung. No way anybody could have it worse than you.

You're either wrong or lying, because there's ALWAYS a worse place to go, if only you could muster the empathy.

I'd rather you were wrong and willing to talk about it.

Ngl, this is part of the reason why I don't like the oppression olympics that is often brought up as a result of pushes for inclusivity and diversity. I didn't see Des702's statement in any way that implied he suffered more than any other marginalized group, and frankly just being human can mean you being ostracized regardless of what ethnicity, orientation or whatever you have. Him being white/cis doesn't invalidate any marginalization he may have felt in school. I don't see why you have to attack him given that he's even stated he's on your side for fem-marines, but whatevs I guess, I guess they aren't wrong when they say they eat their own.

In any case, it's weird that in this case of hypotheticals that somehow GW giving more attention to other factions rather than SM to address the lack of gender diversity is always handwaved away as unrealistic when it's arguably more unrealistic for GW to add female marines out of the blue for SM since they're a proven cash cow which means they would be more risk averse with them with any significant aesthetic changes. Primaris is pretty much building on an existing concept, I personally don't like it, but at least there's some continuity with regards to the armour design, etc. And so if we're aiming for the most ideal situation, which IMO, means less SM as the one in the spotlight (look at the poor Eldar range for God's sake) I don't see why female SM should be the top priority compared to having all the other factions be fleshed out with more modelling options for females where they should be.

Geez I think you need to calm down a bit there. We were all having a pretty respectful conversation but you seem to be really attacking one of the people that's on your side because they are not oppressed enough to be on your side? You don't know my situation you don't know how I grew up you don't know what struggles I had to go through just as I don't know yours. The whole point of me bringing that up was that I don't understand the struggle of people with those identities but we can work together to make everyone feel included.

I am definitely willing to accept that by this point I'm looking for enemies where there are none, but refer you to the above re my experiences of my nearest and dearest doing fem-marines. ApoIogies to those I've tarred with my broad brush in the meantime, I'm going to give myself 24h to chill.

No worries these conversations can definitely bring out a lot of stressful emotions. I wasn't trying to Marty myself or anything, and I'm sorry if it came across that way it was not my intent. I know that I had a lot of privileges when it came to being white male cis and straight. And a lot of it's been a large learning curve. Hell I used to be on the side of no female Marines but then I realized my reasons which are actually quite mirrored above when it comes to the lore and tradition, we're not that important in the grand scheme of the hobby in the end, but it actually meant a lot to others so why not support them and help them feel included.

So I was wrong with that opinion and I'm not afraid to admit it. I do believe that more representation normalizes more people being in the Hobby and therefore will lead to less discrimination and gatekeeping.

Yeah, we gotta be a little careful about jumping on people for this sort of thing, or needing things explained. One of the [EDIT: more avoidable] reasons we have people in the world at large arguing very stringently for some really backwards viewpoints (Not in this thread specifically) is because what seemed obvious to some of us wasn't obvious to everyone, but because it seemed obvious, no patience was shown in explaining - and now there's a fair number of otherwise by and large sensible people who hold terrible views on, let's say, feminism and transgenderism because someone demanding egalitarianism treated them as The Enemy for asking a question or coming from the wrong angle.



I kinda posted the answer to this above you, but the short form is that the most ideal situation from the standpoint of this thread is that all factions that reasonably have a concept of gender have some reasonable gender representation. There is no particularly good reason for there not to be female space marines, because honestly, you wouldn't even have to redesign the armor; you could just throw in a few heads and a few named characters and say "They exist now because Cawl/Etc!"



This is a fair point, and the only way I can reconcile it at all without simply retconning out the Decree Passive is if the Imperium was born in a more misogynistic mindset - the Emperor himself, after all, pretty clearly had a preference for males for some reason - and somehow... well... progressed in its own attitudes towards women(esp. in combat) in the period between and including M36 and M41, and I accept that progressing is not something the Imperium is known for.

Yeah let's all just chill. No need to jump on anyone. That's all remember why we're here for the immense joy that this plastic addiction brings us.

If you don’t get why using the term “girl spacemarines” is patronising and a problem then you don’t understand the problem. I hear grown men using all kinds of terms to describe people, but that doesn’t make them all acceptable. Of course gender matters but does not naturally mean that it matters therefore that marines are all male. That argument is a nonsense. It’s been shown many many times that the lore is not a reason for maintaining the status quo, the lore changes constantly. Marines have changed massively over 30 years, changing them to be male or female is not as big a change as many of the others but you seem to apply so much importance to it for some reason I cannot fathom. When describing marines to someone it would occur to me to mention that they are all male. That doesn’t define them.

You say people join a community like the 40K so that they could feel safe and not judged is a very odd thing to do when you are getting so angry at people wanting to make that community more welcoming and less judgemental. That’s all we want, is to make this a community where women feel included and respected. If that upsets some people who would go and join hate groups then good. We want less hatred and a bit more respect, this doesn’t impress men or in fact do anything to men at all. It just adds to the hobby.

Des702 wrote:I also tend to agree that space Marines are the most versatile faction for customization. There's no other faction that allows you such a blank canvas to create on easily. Yes the guard probably have more flavor to them but the models as supported by Games workshop are just not there. And when it comes to sisters they suffer the same thing as custodians they have too much baked in iconography and flare that it's hard to give your faction a different look other than paint. Conversely Marines have giant smooth broad shapes and therefore it's very easy to add on small iconography and customize the characters. Their joints and connection points are also pretty decent for moving and reshaping the models.

Yeah, I've made this argument before, but didn't repeat it in my last points - Space Marines really are unique in this regard in a way that most factions aren't close to. Space Marines are incredibly customisable, and have a lot of tools to make them so - ranging from armour that is very flat and takes well to both adding and removing details, a wide range of units and lore-supported combat styles, and explicitly diverse and independent cultures that set them apart from other Imperial forces.

In lore, the main thing that comes close to this is the Imperial Guard, but they're almost too diverse - they don't exactly have a common core design other than "light armoured human". Space Marines, no matter what stripe, at least all share the core template of power armour. Therefore, guardsmen, while in theory can be more customisable, in practice, tsuch a task would be near impossible, short of GW entirely scrapping Guardsmen infantry sculpts and taking on the more modular styles I've seen some third party companies do. Which undoubtedly would cost a lot more than a new head sprue.

Castozor wrote:I made that comment thinking that AoS and 40k probably had similar demographics playing them, in other words SM don't need to change because a similar game with arguably better representation does not attract more females. Now if it is indeed true that AoS somehow has more female players then by all means change the way 40k is represented. But by that I mean/prefer feature SoB or DE more in promotional materials don't just change the lore for it.

Alright, but that comes back to my point on why the lore is this thing that can't be changed? Again, I also agree that other factions need to take the limelight from the Astartes, but that's much much easier said than done.

I call it that because changing established lore for silly reasons is something I despise.

Why is representation a silly reason though?

If it only increases engagement from outsiders by a small amount why bother changing what you have.

Why bother keeping something that seems only to cause more problems than it fixes?

Not too mention the game and community will carry on without needless changes so why bother doing them.

The game would carry on *for you*. Not for people who increasingly feel excluded and in want of representation.
You say needless, because it's not you who needs it - do you not see that other people do, though?

insaniak wrote:Funnily enough, I've been thinking about the Decree Passive a bit over the course of this discussion, and it struck me that not only is it more than a little dated, it doesn't actually make any sense.

Spoiler:

From a real world point of view, the Decree Passive was directly born from the inherent sexism of the 80's and '90s. It's a 'joke' that works because we're all supposed to assume that soldiers are men by default, which is the only thing that allows the theoretically more or less egalitarian Imperium having a rule stating that the church can't have 'men at arms' to be logical. And in the early '90's, when soldiers were still by and large men by default, that sort of worked. But by today's standards, it's a 'joke' that doesn't date well, and by the standards of the 41st millennium it's an outright anachronism.

The other part is that in an Imperium where the Inquisition is quick to jump on even their own kind for so much as considering dipping a toe outside the rules (as any given Inquisitor chooses to interpret them), the fact that some member of the church would have got away with raising an army on such a flimsy justification seems more than a little unlikely, and it certainly wouldn't have lasted long enough to build any sizeable force out of it, before some Inquisitor or higher-up with the Ecclesiarchy wandered in and said 'Yes, ok, very funny. Now tell them to put the guns away and go home, or I will stab you.'

Which isn't to say that I have a problem with Sisters of Battle being a thing (while also not being opposed to them being opened out into a general 'Soldiers of the Ecclesiarchy' that allows men as well) .... just that a sexist joke from the '90s that was never intended to really hold up under scrutiny (because nobody back then took the background of the game that seriously) has more than exceeded its use by date, and Sisters need a better reason for existing than 'Hah hah, they're not men, see!'

I feel like, overall, it would be better to change Marines to being either gender, and rework Sisters into a Grey Knight-style Marine Chapter that works directly for the church, with direct supervision by the Inquisition to make sure that no uppity church official chooses to use them for their own ends. As they're a special case, they can still have their unique styling in the same way that Grey Knights do, but they make much more sense than the current set-up.

That's interesting, in all honesty. I hadn't quite considered that.
I'm not sure I'm opposed to the idea, but I could swing either way.

Grimskul wrote:In any case, it's weird that in this case of hypotheticals that somehow GW giving more attention to other factions rather than SM to address the lack of gender diversity is always handwaved away as unrealistic when it's arguably more unrealistic for GW to add female marines out of the blue for SM since they're a proven cash cow which means they would be more risk averse with them with any significant aesthetic changes.

But what's the risk here? You mention this sort of "risk" posed by adding women Space Marines - what sort of risk? What are the problems with such a move? Why does adding women Space Marines jeopardise Space Marines as GW's cash cow?

Also, should we also consider that revamping every other faction, injecting thousands upon thousands of pounds into factions that don't have anywhere near the popularity of Space Marines (by their own doing, I'm aware), is a far FAR worse financial risk, and would also jeopardise Space Marines as GW's cash cow?

Primaris is pretty much building on an existing concept

Women existing is a pretty normal concept, I'd say. Adding women Space Marines is also a helluva lot easier than releasing the entire Primaris range, and also has no impact on the gameplay itself.

I personally don't like it, but at least there's some continuity with regards to the armour design, etc.

And women are human beings. I think that's pretty fair continuity?

And so if we're aiming for the most ideal situation, which IMO, means less SM as the one in the spotlight (look at the poor Eldar range for God's sake) I don't see why female SM should be the top priority compared to having all the other factions be fleshed out with more modelling options for females where they should be.

But why *shouldn't* women be Space Marines?
The lore isn't an argument, the lore's all made up, and Space Marines being male isn't emphasised by GW's fluff pieces on Space Marines, lending me to question how integral it is to their core identity.


I'll keep coming back to this - why shouldn't women be Space Marines in the first place?

Castozor wrote:The sole reason no one takes people like you seriously is exactly because of behavior like this. Don't even dare use the Lord's name since you are clearly not one of His people.

That is a joke, right?

Andykp wrote:You say people join a community like the 40K so that they could feel safe and not judged is a very odd thing to do when you are getting so angry at people wanting to make that community more welcoming and less judgemental. That’s all we want, is to make this a community where women feel included and respected. If that upsets some people who would go and join hate groups then good. We want less hatred and a bit more respect, this doesn’t impress men or in fact do anything to men at all. It just adds to the hobby.

Exactly my thoughts. Sorry, but you can't play the "we're just trying to build a nice community that's inclusive" card when you're arguing in support of using made up fiction to exclude people.

As a point bouncing from that talk of inclusivity and exclusivity, would adding women Space Marines exclude anyone?

 insaniak wrote:

Funnily enough, I've been thinking about the Decree Passive a bit over the course of this discussion, and it struck me that not only is it more than a little dated, it doesn't actually make any sense.

From a real world point of view, the Decree Passive was directly born from the inherent sexism of the 80's and '90s. It's a 'joke' that works because we're all supposed to assume that soldiers are men by default, which is the only thing that allows the theoretically more or less egalitarian Imperium having a rule stating that the church can't have 'men at arms' to be logical. And in the early '90's, when soldiers were still by and large men by default, that sort of worked. But by today's standards, it's a 'joke' that doesn't date well, and by the standards of the 41st millennium it's an outright anachronism.

The other part is that in an Imperium where the Inquisition is quick to jump on even their own kind for so much as considering dipping a toe outside the rules (as any given Inquisitor chooses to interpret them), the fact that some member of the church would have got away with raising an army on such a flimsy justification seems more than a little unlikely, and it certainly wouldn't have lasted long enough to build any sizeable force out of it, before some Inquisitor or higher-up with the Ecclesiarchy wandered in and said 'Yes, ok, very funny. Now tell them to put the guns away and go home, or I will stab you.'

Which isn't to say that I have a problem with Sisters of Battle being a thing (while also not being opposed to them being opened out into a general 'Soldiers of the Ecclesiarchy' that allows men as well) .... just that a sexist joke from the '90s that was never intended to really hold up under scrutiny (because nobody back then took the background of the game that seriously) has more than exceeded its use by date, and Sisters need a better reason for existing than 'Hah hah, they're not men, see!'


I feel like, overall, it would be better to change Marines to being either gender, and rework Sisters into a Grey Knight-style Marine Chapter that works directly for the church, with direct supervision by the Inquisition to make sure that no uppity church official chooses to use them for their own ends. As they're a special case, they can still have their unique styling in the same way that Grey Knights do, but they make much more sense than the current set-up.

It was noted in one of the older Witch Hunters codex that, yes, the Lords of Terra are aware that the whole 'men under arms' thing is a violation of the spirit of the treaty and would have nipped it in the bud except that they could co-opt the Adepta Sororitas as the Militant arm of Ordo Hereticus.

So it's less of a wink wink nudge nudge, we go away with it, sort of thing and more like the Sisters of Battle are exceedingly useful in their role in the Inquisition. Which makes sense if you think about it--the Sisters are a semi-independent organization that are trained, housed, and armed for the most part by the Ecclesiarchy, whose goals align fairly well with Ordo Hereticus, and the Lords of Terra don't even have to fund them like they would with, say, Death Watch or the Grey Knights. This is on top of the Sisters' unusual resistance to the ruinous powers.

The in universe excuse for the Decree to remain in place is probably a combination of not rocking the boat, not messing with a good thing, and having it as a potential back-up in the event that they do have to eliminate the Ecclesiarchy's private army.

Given the above, it would be simple for the Imperium to set up a process to legally recognize men in the Adepta Sororitas as 'women' so that everything stays in alignment. Or GW could reintroduce more Inquisition elements back into the book--inquisitorial stormtroopers (which would be all men because the IG are allergic to women models too), Arbites, gangs, etc.

On the other hand, SoB already can include more men in their line-up than the rest of the Imperial forces include women put together, so if we're worried about representation, I wouldn't think this would be a high priority, especially since there are additional all-male armies outside of the astartes already, like orks and necrons. Apart from Dark Eldar, the other non-astartes armies are pretty bad too.

Altima wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Funnily enough, I've been thinking about the Decree Passive a bit over the course of this discussion, and it struck me that not only is it more than a little dated, it doesn't actually make any sense.

From a real world point of view, the Decree Passive was directly born from the inherent sexism of the 80's and '90s. It's a 'joke' that works because we're all supposed to assume that soldiers are men by default, which is the only thing that allows the theoretically more or less egalitarian Imperium having a rule stating that the church can't have 'men at arms' to be logical. And in the early '90's, when soldiers were still by and large men by default, that sort of worked. But by today's standards, it's a 'joke' that doesn't date well, and by the standards of the 41st millennium it's an outright anachronism.

The other part is that in an Imperium where the Inquisition is quick to jump on even their own kind for so much as considering dipping a toe outside the rules (as any given Inquisitor chooses to interpret them), the fact that some member of the church would have got away with raising an army on such a flimsy justification seems more than a little unlikely, and it certainly wouldn't have lasted long enough to build any sizeable force out of it, before some Inquisitor or higher-up with the Ecclesiarchy wandered in and said 'Yes, ok, very funny. Now tell them to put the guns away and go home, or I will stab you.'

Which isn't to say that I have a problem with Sisters of Battle being a thing (while also not being opposed to them being opened out into a general 'Soldiers of the Ecclesiarchy' that allows men as well) .... just that a sexist joke from the '90s that was never intended to really hold up under scrutiny (because nobody back then took the background of the game that seriously) has more than exceeded its use by date, and Sisters need a better reason for existing than 'Hah hah, they're not men, see!'


I feel like, overall, it would be better to change Marines to being either gender, and rework Sisters into a Grey Knight-style Marine Chapter that works directly for the church, with direct supervision by the Inquisition to make sure that no uppity church official chooses to use them for their own ends. As they're a special case, they can still have their unique styling in the same way that Grey Knights do, but they make much more sense than the current set-up.

It was noted in one of the older Witch Hunters codex that, yes, the Lords of Terra are aware that the whole 'men under arms' thing is a violation of the spirit of the treaty and would have nipped it in the bud except that they could co-opt the Adepta Sororitas as the Militant arm of Ordo Hereticus.

So it's less of a wink wink nudge nudge, we go away with it, sort of thing and more like the Sisters of Battle are exceedingly useful in their role in the Inquisition. Which makes sense if you think about it--the Sisters are a semi-independent organization that are trained, housed, and armed for the most part by the Ecclesiarchy, whose goals align fairly well with Ordo Hereticus, and the Lords of Terra don't even have to fund them like they would with, say, Death Watch or the Grey Knights. This is on top of the Sisters' unusual resistance to the ruinous powers.

The in universe excuse for the Decree to remain in place is probably a combination of not rocking the boat, not messing with a good thing, and having it as a potential back-up in the event that they do have to eliminate the Ecclesiarchy's private army.

Given the above, it would be simple for the Imperium to set up a process to legally recognize men in the Adepta Sororitas as 'women' so that everything stays in alignment. Or GW could reintroduce more Inquisition elements back into the book--inquisitorial stormtroopers (which would be all men because the IG are allergic to women models too), Arbites, gangs, etc.

On the other hand, SoB already can include more men in their line-up than the rest of the Imperial forces include women put together, so if we're worried about representation, I wouldn't think this would be a high priority, especially since there are additional all-male armies outside of the astartes already, like orks and necrons. Apart from Dark Eldar, the other non-astartes armies are pretty bad too.

^this. There are male models in all the SoB kits that currently exist that include men, and literally any plastic human kit in existence outside of the sisters of battle range gives you male heads that you can use all day long to make male sisters.

If I bought a box of sisters of battle, with my bits box I could EFFORTLESSLY make an all-male squad.

If I want to make female marines, I must buy sisters of battle boxes to do so, if I want to keep within GW. They (and now, I suppose, the new Guardsmen kit box) are the only source of heads for normal human female heads in the 40k range.

It’s also worth noting wrt the SoB that Sebastian Thor who led the resistance against Vandire was both a major driver behind the Decree Passive and the one that ordered the reorganisation of the Brides of the Emperor into the Adepta Sororitas.

The 3rd Ed era lore also explicitly stated that he was concerned that leaving the Ecclesiarch completely disarmed would leave it at risk of coercion.

The implication being that the Decree Passive was carefully worded by Thor so as not to exclude the Sisters, with the get out clause being a feature not a bug.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Altima wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Funnily enough, I've been thinking about the Decree Passive a bit over the course of this discussion, and it struck me that not only is it more than a little dated, it doesn't actually make any sense.

From a real world point of view, the Decree Passive was directly born from the inherent sexism of the 80's and '90s. It's a 'joke' that works because we're all supposed to assume that soldiers are men by default, which is the only thing that allows the theoretically more or less egalitarian Imperium having a rule stating that the church can't have 'men at arms' to be logical. And in the early '90's, when soldiers were still by and large men by default, that sort of worked. But by today's standards, it's a 'joke' that doesn't date well, and by the standards of the 41st millennium it's an outright anachronism.

The other part is that in an Imperium where the Inquisition is quick to jump on even their own kind for so much as considering dipping a toe outside the rules (as any given Inquisitor chooses to interpret them), the fact that some member of the church would have got away with raising an army on such a flimsy justification seems more than a little unlikely, and it certainly wouldn't have lasted long enough to build any sizeable force out of it, before some Inquisitor or higher-up with the Ecclesiarchy wandered in and said 'Yes, ok, very funny. Now tell them to put the guns away and go home, or I will stab you.'

Which isn't to say that I have a problem with Sisters of Battle being a thing (while also not being opposed to them being opened out into a general 'Soldiers of the Ecclesiarchy' that allows men as well) .... just that a sexist joke from the '90s that was never intended to really hold up under scrutiny (because nobody back then took the background of the game that seriously) has more than exceeded its use by date, and Sisters need a better reason for existing than 'Hah hah, they're not men, see!'


I feel like, overall, it would be better to change Marines to being either gender, and rework Sisters into a Grey Knight-style Marine Chapter that works directly for the church, with direct supervision by the Inquisition to make sure that no uppity church official chooses to use them for their own ends. As they're a special case, they can still have their unique styling in the same way that Grey Knights do, but they make much more sense than the current set-up.

It was noted in one of the older Witch Hunters codex that, yes, the Lords of Terra are aware that the whole 'men under arms' thing is a violation of the spirit of the treaty and would have nipped it in the bud except that they could co-opt the Adepta Sororitas as the Militant arm of Ordo Hereticus.

So it's less of a wink wink nudge nudge, we go away with it, sort of thing and more like the Sisters of Battle are exceedingly useful in their role in the Inquisition. Which makes sense if you think about it--the Sisters are a semi-independent organization that are trained, housed, and armed for the most part by the Ecclesiarchy, whose goals align fairly well with Ordo Hereticus, and the Lords of Terra don't even have to fund them like they would with, say, Death Watch or the Grey Knights. This is on top of the Sisters' unusual resistance to the ruinous powers.

The in universe excuse for the Decree to remain in place is probably a combination of not rocking the boat, not messing with a good thing, and having it as a potential back-up in the event that they do have to eliminate the Ecclesiarchy's private army.

Given the above, it would be simple for the Imperium to set up a process to legally recognize men in the Adepta Sororitas as 'women' so that everything stays in alignment. Or GW could reintroduce more Inquisition elements back into the book--inquisitorial stormtroopers (which would be all men because the IG are allergic to women models too), Arbites, gangs, etc.

On the other hand, SoB already can include more men in their line-up than the rest of the Imperial forces include women put together, so if we're worried about representation, I wouldn't think this would be a high priority, especially since there are additional all-male armies outside of the astartes already, like orks and necrons. Apart from Dark Eldar, the other non-astartes armies are pretty bad too.

^this. There are male models in all the SoB kits that currently exist that include men, and literally any plastic human kit in existence outside of the sisters of battle range gives you male heads that you can use all day long to make male sisters.

If I bought a box of sisters of battle, with my bits box I could EFFORTLESSLY make an all-male squad.

If I want to make female marines, I must buy sisters of battle boxes to do so, if I want to keep within GW. They (and now, I suppose, the new Guardsmen kit box) are the only source of heads for normal human female heads in the 40k range.

I don't know if I should quite call it effortlessly since you would have to shave off the boobplate.

I would think that the best method would be to leave a couple of male only/female only armies or none at all. If you give all human factions women but exclude men from one you will end up forstering resentment and that makes the fight harder. If you want to coed sisters after doing the same to marines bring in fanatics (both male and female) then inquisitor stormtroopers for the male with the sisters being the female only side.

Saying oh just pop the heads off other kits to make male sisters is really the same argument we are getting from the no-female marines side. While you have tonnes of male heads, that is not true of everyone.

On a side note crons are both male and female but lack personalities for the most part. I would like to balance that by seeing female Cron characters.

...why would a male sister of battle be allowed to change the holy armor plating gifted down to the sororitas since time immemorial?

...and why would the hallowed armor not fit? would his lack of breasts prevent the large sculpted-on armor breasts from functioning somehow?

True it could be extra storage. A sandwich and a baggle.

But more serious I think the game might loose some of it's grim dark in that.

 the_scotsman wrote:
...why would a male sister of battle be allowed to change the holy armor plating gifted down to the sororitas since time immemorial?

...and why would the hallowed armor not fit? would his lack of breasts prevent the large sculpted-on armor breasts from functioning somehow?

Surely there are already available accommodations in the existing Sororitas armors for those would-be martyrs with flatter chests.

Des702 wrote:
I would think that the best method would be to leave a couple of male only/female only armies or none at all. If you give all human factions women but exclude men from one you will end up forstering resentment and that makes the fight harder. If you want to coed sisters after doing the same to marines bring in fanatics (both male and female) then inquisitor stormtroopers for the male with the sisters being the female only side.

None at all is the approach I would be advocating for, because you're right in that consistency is important. If we say, lorewise, that there are female Marines for the sake of representation, there should also be male Sororitas.

Des702 wrote:
True it could be extra storage. A sandwich and a baggle.

But more serious I think the game might loose some of it's grim dark in that.

The same way it did when there were male heads in the new howling banshee kit? (but not female heads in the Incubi kit, sadly, but with the drukhari range that's easy enough to fix as you get tons of both with lots of cool variation)

This is kind of my main thing though. There's still a lot of units that are for no reason made as all-male that could/should be just mixed 50-50, and even when they do manage to get it right, you get kits like the Van Saar gang, where one body is sculpted as female and there's one female head in the kit - so unless you SOMEHOW scrounge up a female head bit from somewhere, your female gang members are all going to be exact clones all in the exact same pose.

Meanwhile, when I was going about making my Deathwatch army where my goal was to have each and every member of my deathwatch be from a distinct chapter with a distinct personality, I had more options than you could shake a stick at:

-Grungy, dirty dozen marines chomping cigars and wearing bandannas and cool shades from the Orlock gang
-marines from a ton of established chapters just out of the deathwatch box
-angelic blonde pretty boy heads from the sanguinary guard box I got a while back
-a "clearly had horns but sawed them off" hellboy inspired blackshield from the Thousand Sons Exalted Sorceror box
-Heavily Cyborgized marines with heads from the Kataphron Servitors and various bareheaded skitarii
-Fabulous flamboyant marines from basically every gay subculture from the space wolves box
-Gaunt secret agent spook marines from the Delaque box
-Special forces beret marines from the Scions box
-Scarred vets from the guard command squad
-Crazy bezerkers with wild hair from the Goliath box

all of it just there kicking around in my bits box from kits I'd gotten over the years, because if you collect any human armies in 40k you get 20-40 spare dude heads.

Yeah and that I feel is the main point of the thread, not only has GW failed by having their very obvious flagship faction be male only but almost all other armies are supposed to be coed but fail spectacularly. I mean my Imperial Guard look like they are all taking a collective dump...

The new head pack is a god send. As for how I hope GW rolls out this glaring mistake, I would hope to see one head sprue to add in female marines then new updated kits for all of the factions (especially models in failcast) that allow proper coed with lots of heads and torsos with legs being the limiting factor. Then new female special characters for crons, Admech and tau (in all three the grunts would be impossible to tell).

***List is not exhaustive I may have forgotten about a faction but that would be the gist***

Edit: as for orks... I don't know how you would feminize a faction fully built on poking fun at toxic masculinity.... I know originally they we soccer/football hooligans but it really fits Toxic Masculinity well.

Des702 wrote:
Edit: as for orks... I don't know how you would feminize a faction fully built on poking fun at toxic masculinity.... I know originally they we soccer/football hooligans but it really fits Toxic Masculinity well.

To be honest, hooligans and hooliganism in general is an expression of toxic masculinity. In my opinion, its okay to have mono-gender factions. The problem is when you have several mono-gender factions, all of the same gender, co-ed factions that are almost exclusively, if not completely, mono-gender (and of the same gender than the mono-gender faction). In other words, in a game where representation is good across the board, a few mono-gender faction is nice to have around, but in a game with poor diversity, mono-gender faction feel like a constrain.

That being said, prior to release of the new Sisters of Battle and the massive influx of fluff about them since their return, I don't think it's necessary or even pertinent for GW to produce female Space Marines. If you want to make some or invent your own, slightly heretical Chapter, that found a way to recruit women in their ranks, I have no problem with that. I think, GW should focus more on making the Imperial Guard, Eldars and Dark Eldars properly co-ed. If there were to have female Space Marines, I would make them a Chaos exclusive thing.

Des702 wrote:
Yeah and that I feel is the main point of the thread, not only has GW failed by having their very obvious flagship faction be male only but almost all other armies are supposed to be coed but fail spectacularly. I mean my Imperial Guard look like they are all taking a collective dump...

The new head pack is a god send. As for how I hope GW rolls out this glaring mistake, I would hope to see one head sprue to add in female marines then new updated kits for all of the factions (especially models in failcast) that allow proper coed with lots of heads and torsos with legs being the limiting factor. Then new female special characters for crons, Admech and tau (in all three the grunts would be impossible to tell).

***List is not exhaustive I may have forgotten about a faction but that would be the gist***

Edit: as for orks... I don't know how you would feminize a faction fully built on poking fun at toxic masculinity.... I know originally they we soccer/football hooligans but it really fits Toxic Masculinity well.

You don't really need to feminize orks, just like how it's not needed for somethin like nids. They're just both forces of nature.

Orks don't need to be feminised at all because they aren't technically males, they're fungus that look dude enough to be given male pronouns.
I think adding more special characters to Necrons who already have 11 named character units is a solid pass. T'au maybe but what is it going to be apart from just another Battlesuit commander. Admech I think are fine and GW just needs to focus more on the fact that Magi can be pretty much anything considering their "enlightened" state of mind (i.e. Binary is for code, not gender) and the fact that some Magi are actually multiple minds connected to one overmind, sort of like a mini hive mind.
As a whole, more emphasis needs to be put on "Your Dudes" in 40k which Crusade I feel does really well, but it still feels like it's more of a side option compared to AoS where the Anvil of Apotheosis (custom charachter generator) is a thing.

 Gert wrote:

Spoiler:

Des702 wrote:
Yeah and that I feel is the main point of the thread, not only has GW failed by having their very obvious flagship faction be male only but almost all other armies are supposed to be coed but fail spectacularly. I mean my Imperial Guard look like they are all taking a collective dump...

The new head pack is a god send. As for how I hope GW rolls out this glaring mistake, I would hope to see one head sprue to add in female marines then new updated kits for all of the factions (especially models in failcast) that allow proper coed with lots of heads and torsos with legs being the limiting factor. Then new female special characters for crons, Admech and tau (in all three the grunts would be impossible to tell).

***List is not exhaustive I may have forgotten about a faction but that would be the gist***

Edit: as for orks... I don't know how you would feminize a faction fully built on poking fun at toxic masculinity.... I know originally they we soccer/football hooligans but it really fits Toxic Masculinity well.

Orks don't need to be feminised at all because they aren't technically males, they're fungus that look dude enough to be given male pronouns.
I think adding more special characters to Necrons who already have 11 named character units is a solid pass. T'au maybe but what is it going to be apart from just another Battlesuit commander. Admech I think are fine and GW just needs to focus more on the fact that Magi can be pretty much anything considering their "enlightened" state of mind (i.e. Binary is for code, not gender) and the fact that some Magi are actually multiple minds connected to one overmind, sort of like a mini hive mind.
As a whole, more emphasis needs to be put on "Your Dudes" in 40k which Crusade I feel does really well, but it still feels like it's more of a side option compared to AoS where the Anvil of Apotheosis (custom charachter generator) is a thing.

Ok was not aware crons had 11 named characters. I can only think of 4 off the top of my head but fair enough with the special characters.

Orks I wasn't really advocating for female/femininity, more so just stating that if you really wanted some, as some people suggested they wanted all coed and others even listed orks as a "male" faction that it would be hard as they are the toxic masculinity faction and technally sexless.

Hell I think for Admech you could hammer that point home by having Cawl use "they, them" pronouns as technically they have multiple minds (both male and female) within them.

Bingo, I think a non-binary Admech character was even included in a book recently but obviously the reaction by the vocal minority was what it was and it soured what should have been a cool thing.

I feel that at this point in the story, they have an easy ability to add a female space marine chapter and female space marines across the other chapters.

Cawl recently created the means to create primaris marines. If they added that if the process was performed on a sister of battle, then due to some miracle of the emperor, they also can very rarely live through the process.

Gillman dictates that as a new space marine, they must fall under a chapter and cannot stay as part of the sisters organization. They make a new chapter with the same general goals as the sisters of battle and some new sister space marines join the various chapters as new training is needed to handle the 4ish new feet gained of super human that they are.

Write this in a way more skillfully than an internet warrior. Make it use more setting correct verbiage but the ability to use cawl's new tool and Gilliam's authority allows you to not have to retcon the past but show better change for future stories.

And then emperor wasn't a misogynist as regular space marines couldn't, but miracle + new primaris can have it function.

Why shouldn’t the emperor be a misogynist, he was a complete douche to everyone else, a massive racist, murderer and crushed all rival religions. Misogyny isn’t a big stretch.

The fluff for my female marines is that it was always possible, just the emperor didn’t want female marines so said it couldn’t be done. When my chapter started making new marines (a primaris new founded chapter) they didn’t get the memo about “no girls” so made female marines. They found it works as well and if not a little better and now word has spread and more chapters are recruiting women.

The reasons for the emperors rules on no women isn’t stated in my fluff but it is noted that he appears to like the company of men better.

 the_scotsman wrote:
This is kind of my main thing though. There's still a lot of units that are for no reason made as all-male that could/should be just mixed 50-50, and even when they do manage to get it right, you get kits like the Van Saar gang, where one body is sculpted as female and there's one female head in the kit - so unless you SOMEHOW scrounge up a female head bit from somewhere, your female gang members are all going to be exact clones all in the exact same pose.

I agree 100%. I'm pretty curious to see the new Stormcast sprues because it seems like GW have tried to balance the kit ~50/50 male-female and are adding more diversity of heads as well. Hopefully it ends up being pretty good and we'll see that trend continue onward in future human kits for both 40k and AoS.

As for the kits already out, maybe GW could be persuaded to do a few faction upgrade sprues of some variety, similar to what the Guardsman squad is getting. They clearly are open to the idea as Forge World also made that pack of female Stormcast heads and female Orlock add-ons.

Des702 wrote:
Yeah and that I feel is the main point of the thread, not only has GW failed by having their very obvious flagship faction be male only but almost all other armies are supposed to be coed but fail spectacularly. I mean my Imperial Guard look like they are all taking a collective dump...

The new head pack is a god send. As for how I hope GW rolls out this glaring mistake, I would hope to see one head sprue to add in female marines then new updated kits for all of the factions (especially models in failcast) that allow proper coed with lots of heads and torsos with legs being the limiting factor. Then new female special characters for crons, Admech and tau (in all three the grunts would be impossible to tell).

***List is not exhaustive I may have forgotten about a faction but that would be the gist***

Edit: as for orks... I don't know how you would feminize a faction fully built on poking fun at toxic masculinity.... I know originally they we soccer/football hooligans but it really fits Toxic Masculinity well.

I completely agree that until recently GW have been (and as the_scotsman pointed out, still kind of are) dropping the ball when it comes to representing the full range of diversity that the lore has always described.

I think the solution to the imbalance really should be an increase in seeing factions other than space marines feature more prominently in GW works and even have some marine-less starter boxes. Space Marines aren't even really that much easier to paint that most other armies provided you aren't comparing a basic Marine to some other faction's super bling-ed out infantry. Especially when you consider how complex models were in something like Dark Vengeance, which lasted for 2 entire editions...

Plus the way GW is going with having multiple "vs boxes" per year and an "enthusiast box" separate from the actual starter set there's no reason that the starter needs to be linked to the currently obligatory yearly marine box...

 Gert wrote:
Bingo, I think a non-binary Admech character was even included in a book recently but obviously the reaction by the vocal minority was what it was and it soured what should have been a cool thing.

The thing is, there is almost always going to be some amount of people that disagree with just about anything you can think of. Whether it's ideological difference, bias, or just plain contrarianism people manage to find ways to disagree with one another, that's part of life.

But people disagreeing with something, no matter the reason, only sours that thing if you let it. At the end of the day, if there's a non-binary Admech character in the canon and that's important to you (I haven't read a lot of the recent books so sorry I'm not familiar with the character), then celebrate that and don't let the contrarians badger other people about it.

For what it's worth, that's how I feel about about people attempting to push for changes to Space Marines...

kinginyello wrote:
I feel that at this point in the story, they have an easy ability to add a female space marine chapter and female space marines across the other chapters.

Cawl recently created the means to create primaris marines. If they added that if the process was performed on a sister of battle, then due to some miracle of the emperor, they also can very rarely live through the process.

Gillman dictates that as a new space marine, they must fall under a chapter and cannot stay as part of the sisters organization. They make a new chapter with the same general goals as the sisters of battle and some new sister space marines join the various chapters as new training is needed to handle the 4ish new feet gained of super human that they are.

Write this in a way more skillfully than an internet warrior. Make it use more setting correct verbiage but the ability to use cawl's new tool and Gilliam's authority allows you to not have to retcon the past but show better change for future stories.

And then emperor wasn't a misogynist as regular space marines couldn't, but miracle + new primaris can have it function.

Ok, so I want to comment on this because people have been making very similar assertions all over Dakka and it typically goes unchallenged. This is going to sound like a hot take, but:

Lorewise, Cawl really didn't do anything that significant and the Primaris marines really aren't that significantly different from Firstborn.

Guilliman gives Cawl a device, previously used by the Emperor, called the Sangprimus Portum which has copies of the genetic codes of all 20 primarchs. Basically Cawl takes roughly 10,000 years to badly copy the Emperor's homework (as illustrated by him only being able to copy half of one of the organs because the data for the other half was missing) to make two organs and one "organ". What do the organs do? One makes marines biggie sized like the primarchs (but not too big because it's only half of the organ...), the second makes and excretes a chemical that improves their ability to heal, and the third "organ" is Cawl wrapping steel mesh around all of their muscles making them more durable. Oh and he gave them less degraded geneseed, which turned out to not matter because all the marines still have their flaws anyway...

Beyond that we got a new mark of power armor, new, slightly bigger, patterns of the same weapons that Space Marines have always had, and new vehicles that look like Cawl played paper dolls with photos of various STC constructions and had an odd obsession with the land speeder's grav assembly. None of that is particularly wild in a setting where the Imperium has made multiple different patterns and variants of things due to the STC nature of their technology, except for the organs bit. And again, Cawl just ended up badly plagiarizing the Emperor's work to make minor changes.

The last thing was Cawl/Guilliman restructuring the way that squad layouts worked to be more Legion-esq and basically throwing the codex Astartes out the window in the process.

The problem in the real world is that if you do all of this at the same time it's liable to upset a lot of the fans. Especially when you do it using a previously unknown character, reveal it at the end of a very climactic narrative event, after having just returned another incredibly significant character from near death, and then say "they are stronger than the old ones!"

A lot of people agree that the lore changes were all just economics based to begin with (which is why the changes are not really that crazy). Basically in the real world GW had run out of new Marine accessories to sell and the only two things the community consistently asked for was "truescaled marines" and "make them feel tougher like in the novels". So GW made a new armor pattern in a bigger scale, but they needed a way to ensure people would actual buy them rather than just proxy their old models for the new ones. So they did everything they could to make them as functionally incompatible as possible.

The marines are on bigger bases and have the same base weapon but with multiple unique variants which makes proxying them hard. All the special weapons are in separate squads meaning that even if you wanted to proxy them, most players would have enough identical special weapon gunners lying around to do it. The jump pack and terminator equivalents are both heavier armored and uses a dual ranged weapon configuration which wasn't legal on old marines. All the vehicles are differently sized and have totally different numbers of weapons. Also the marines are canonically a head taller and have a different number of wounds (prior to the later update) so they don't get to use your old vehicles for some reason and also it might confuse people if you use old marine bodies with new ones because the have different stats... So you should just re-buy your whole army right?

But yeah, tl;dr primaris lore really doesn't really have any changes about how marines are made or the in setting science behind it. It was just a pretty blatant attempt to force the community to re-buy their marine armies by not really changing things enough to cause outright fan revolt, but just enough to make it more or less unfeasible for the majority of players to just ignore the changes or proxy old models.

I mean sure if you ignore the strength, toughness, extra organs, less degraded genetic code from gene-seed, and seemingly increased willpower/resistance to Chaotic influence, then Primaris are absolutely the same as Firstborn. The fact GW kept the gene-flaws in the Primaris was a welcome surprise because it meant these new lads weren't super perfect win machines.
Add in the fact that the Primaris are to the Firstborn what the Firstborn were to the Thunder-Warriors, a new generation come to supplant them to fight new wars.
Guilliman was fully aware of how adding thousands of new SM to the Chapters and founding new Chapters while going on crusade as the Emperor's Regent would look to the High Lords. His views on the Church are also well known and he has to balance that with his GC-era idealism.
The Codex is still a thing btw it just got adapted to fit the new Primaris units into it. The old Chapter org style is still there, still 10 companies with 1 vet, 4 battle, 4 reserve, and a scout company.
The chance for an Imperial civil war is still a relatively big one as there are multiple organisations opposed to even the idea of Guilliman.
You can choose to ignore what is actually happening in the new stories/lore but it's still there.

Obviously, they were added to get people to rebuy their armies, why are you acting like that's a surprising thing?

Andykp wrote:
Why shouldn’t the emperor be a misogynist, he was a complete douche to everyone else, a massive racist, murderer and crushed all rival religions. Misogyny isn’t a big stretch.

The problem with this concept is that it normalizes that behavior. It's fine if it's a straight-up villain being this way because it demonizes that behavior. But fully half the factions and more than half the representation yells out "For the emperor!" And while someone steeped in the lore knows that yeah the emperor was a massive donkey cave and not really what you want to look up to and all the factions are massively flawed and there are no good guys in this setting, people looking to get into the hobby won't have that knowledge very accessible to them.

Besides we've seen when someone in charge, even if they are fictional, is misogynistic and racist it normalizes the behavior to players. I mean we have a fairly outspoken group that does just that and yes while most of it's centered around Arch Warhammer he still is fairly popular.

Still nobody wants to answer the question of this entire discussion. If Space Marines were to suddenly be female capable, would that make you stop playing 40k?

Removed - ingtær

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Still nobody wants to answer the question of this entire discussion. If Space Marines were to suddenly be female capable, would that make you stop playing 40k?

If everyone did and went on to play Hail Ceasar, would you then demand they introduce female roman legionaries/ phalangist ?

Yes, because that's what racism and sexism are. You are very smart! I'm glad that you know the contents of Mein Kampf well enough to know how a word replacement would go. That's very interesting.

So a hypothetical: you make female space marines.Well done. You have representation and cure the world problem of sexism.

As a result those thousands and thousands of nasty gate keeping biggoted sexist white men that ruin 40k for women, leave 40k.

Lets say those nasty gatekeepers then go play hail ceasar, and make it into a widespread successful game most local communities drift to and ends up being more successful/played than 40k.

Do people demand hail Caesar address representation?

Argive wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Still nobody wants to answer the question of this entire discussion. If Space Marines were to suddenly be female capable, would that make you stop playing 40k?

If everyone did and went on to play Hail Ceasar, would you then demand they introduce female roman legionaries/ phalangist ?

Answer the question. Hail Caesar has nothing to do with this.

Argive wrote:So a hypothetical: you make female space marines.Well done. You have representation and cure the world problem of sexism.

As a result those thousands and thousands of nasty gate keeping biggoted sexist white men that ruin 40k for women, leave 40k.

Lets say those nasty gatekeepers then go play hail ceasar, and make it into a widespread successful game most local communities drift to and ends up being more successful/played than 40k.

Do people demand hail Caesar address representation?

Is this a Hail Caesar subforum? Does Hail Caesar have anything to do with women Space Marines?
I thought not.

Would having women Space Marines stop you playing?

I must confess I don't understand why Games Workshop should create a female space marines chapter, if we already have the Sisters of Battle, which already are de facto the female equivalent of the Space Marines. So it would be enough state that the Adeptus Mechanicus have finally find a way to make the Space Marines' genetic enhancements compatible with the female physiology and give them to the Sisters of Battles to have a female army practically equal to the male Space Marines in (almost) everything.
In my opinion it would be a (by far) more interesting option, than the idea (for me really boring) to create the umpteenth new Space chapter.

If we get a whole new never ending set of kits/upgrades for marines I'm definitely dropping 40k.. I'm fed up with never ending marine releases while im stuck with failcrap models.

People have argued to no end that SOB and guard should be the poster child with new awesome female centric models, and we've yet to see any concession why that is not a viable solution and male only space marines must end...

Me bringing up hail ceasar has to do with 40k. This is because the main argument seems to be that male only space marines facilitate sexist gatekeeping boys-only group which is bad for women.

That argument also has nothing to do with 40k or lore.. But rather based on real world ideology and socio-political viewpoints

If we take it at face value and say there are indeed thousands of bigoted gatekeeper white men(which I certainly disagree with). And they really cant abide by female space marines; So if you eject those gatekeepers from 40k by introducing female space marines , they will go somewhere right?

Its been suggested these groups are somehow organised in some sort of collective way in grups/reddits whatever...
Lets say they go away from 40k and join a new Hail Caesar thing which then becomes wildly successful and other 40k people get attracted to it instead of 40k and it gains wide adoption, do you them to it?

I think its a very valid question.
Is there a representation issue with Hail Caesar?

ould there be an issue with Hail Cesar IF it overtakes 40k in terms of popularity, engagement and hobby uptake?

The_Grim_Angel wrote:I must confess I don't understand why Games Workshop should create a female space marines chapter, if we already have the Sisters of Battle, which already are de facto the female equivalent of the Space Marines.

They're as much female Space Marines as Custodes are to regular Space Marines.

Their aesthetic is completely different, their gameplay is completely different, their background and methods of warfare are completely different, they're physically different, and the focus they get in the wider meta-narrative isn't anywhere near equal.

Sisters aren't Space Marines.

In my opinion it would be a more interesting option, than the idea (for me really boring) to create the umpteenth new Space chapter.

It wouldn't be a new Chapter - it'd be adding women into existing Chapters.

Argive wrote:If we get a whole new never ending set of kits/upgrades for marines I'm definitely dropping 40k.. I'm fed up with never ending marine releases while im stuck with failcrap models.

Pretty sure people have only been advocating for a single sprue. That's much more palatable than all the subfaction sprues we got.

People have argued to no end that SOB and guard should be the poster child with new awesome female centric models, and we've yet to see any concession why that is not a viable solution and male only space marines must end...

You must have missed my comments then.

The reason why this doesn't work in practice is that Space Marines are the poster boys by a LONG way. To remove them from that pedestal, you'd need to basically write a book series greater than the Horus Heresy, and all the other Marine-centric books, a whole swathe of new Guardsmen subfactions all with their own models and units and sub-codexes, change *all* the external branding to have generic human soldiers (not very marketable) instead of the Iconic Space Marine, a new game system a la the Horus Heresy where it's just guardsmen, inject the absolute thousands upon thousands of pounds into that, and that would still not even touch upon the massive cultural impact that Space Marines have on 40k as a whole.

Versus one (1) sprue of women heads designed for Space Marines, future SM releases exchanging some male heads for women, and a single line of lore. Pretty sure that one's vastly cheaper and easier.

Me bringing up hail ceasar has to do with 40k.

Howso?

This is because the main argument seems to be that male only space marines facilitate sexist gatekeeping boys-only group which is bad for women.

Which they do, yes.

That argument also has nothing to do with 40k or lore..

Lore is made up. If your argument about real world representation is consulting made up fiction before you consider the real people it affects, your argument is kinda sketchy.

But rather based on real world ideology and socio-political viewpoints

Women having representation isn't a problem is it?

If we take it at face value and say there are indeed thousands of bigoted gatekeeper white men(which I certainly disagree with).

You can disagree with it, but you'd be factually incorrect. And you can leave the racebaiting out, and just leave it as "gatekeepers", yes? Just so you don't turn this into some kind of strawman.

And they really cant abide by female space marines; So if you eject those gatekeepers from 40k by introducing female space marines , they will go somewhere right?

I frankly don't care where they go, to be honest. If they infest some other group, I'd hope that other group treated them in the same manner I would.

Its been suggested these groups are somehow organised in some sort of collective way in grups/reddits whatever...
Lets say they go away from 40k and join a new Hail Caesar thing which then becomes wildly successful and other 40k people get attracted to it instead of 40k and it gains wide adoption, do you them to it?

It's got nothing to do with me, because I don't play Hail Caesar, and this is a 40k subforum. What they do is unimportant to this discussion.

I think its a very valid question.
Is there a representation issue with Hail Caesar?

I don't play Hail Caesar, so why would I know?
If there are people who are calling for representation, why shouldn't they have it?

ould there be an issue with Hail Cesar IF it overtakes 40k in terms of popularity, engagement and hobby uptake?

Not as far as I'm concerned, no. You seem to be implying something along the lines of "GW need us anti-women Space Marine hobbyists, because if they add women, we'll just go somewhere else and make that an exclusive, non-representative boys-only club".

Quite frankly, if people leave 40k because they can't handle women Space Marines, that's their problem.

Sexism - prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Feminism - the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

Before Argive spouts more nonsense and troll points, it's imperative we setup bastions of fact.

Feminism is the literal antithesis of Sexism.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Sexism - prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Feminism - the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

Before Argive spouts more nonsense and troll points, it's imperative we setup bastions of fact.

Feminism is the literal antithesis of Sexism.

It's important to note that there are different waves of feminism, and I would argue the latest one has veered significantly off on the origins of the first two waves of feminism, and in many cases I would say have regressed backwards.

I would caution pushing this too far past the original topic though since we are already borderline going into politics territory.

Personally though, if they did release female space marines, I probably wouldn't stop playing the game altogether because I only play Orks anyways, but I would dread it becoming start of the slippery slope of what has happened to Star Wars, Star Trek and soon to be LoTR with Amazon's abomination of a TV show with how these franchises get their lore and underpinning stories changed willy nilly because everything has to be seen through the lens of a supposedly utopian ideal of representation.

I would also hate that other factions get neglected yet again for another unnecessary SM update. I know people are arguing that "oh, it'll just be one upgrade sprue" but let's be real, if it's GW and their cash cow, they rarely half-ass model releases for them and they will have at least a full month of different chapter specific female upgrades that take up the slot of an army that needs actual loving/updating.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The_Grim_Angel wrote:I must confess I don't understand why Games Workshop should create a female space marines chapter, if we already have the Sisters of Battle, which already are de facto the female equivalent of the Space Marines.

They're as much female Space Marines as Custodes are to regular Space Marines.

Their aesthetic is completely different, their gameplay is completely different, their background and methods of warfare are completely different, they're physically different, and the focus they get in the wider meta-narrative isn't anywhere near equal.
[…]

That is why I think it is an extremely boring option: it wouldn't add nothing to the lore and to the game; especially if they were only space marines women in the existent space marines chapters.

Grimskul wrote:Personally though, if they did release female space marines, I probably wouldn't stop playing the game altogether because I only play Orks anyways, but I would dread it becoming start of the slippery slope of what has happened to Star Wars, Star Trek and soon to be LoTR with Amazon's abomination of a TV show with how these franchises get their lore and underpinning stories changed willy nilly because everything has to be seen through the lens of a supposedly utopian ideal of representation.

Star Trek has *always* been "woke". It literally was designed to be a utopian setting.

And again, what exactly is the problem with representation here? Why is lore more important than representation here?

I would also hate that other factions get neglected yet again for another unnecessary SM update.

It's a new sprue of heads and a new sentence of lore. Hardly a massive cost from GW to do.

Also, you say unnecessary, but I don't think that's really your call to declare unilaterally.

I know people are arguing that "oh, it'll just be one upgrade sprue" but let's be real, if it's GW and their cash cow, they rarely half-ass model releases for them and they will have at least a full month of different chapter specific female upgrades that take up the slot of an army that needs actual loving/updating.

Going by that logic, wanting representation in other factions won't work either because GW will still prioritise Space Marines and dedicate tons of resources to them.

And you again say "actual loving/updating" - I'd say that adding women Space Marines is something in need of actual loving/updating. Space Marines? Not really. Women Space Marines. Long overdue, ever since their removal decades ago.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The_Grim_Angel wrote:I must confess I don't understand why Games Workshop should create a female space marines chapter, if we already have the Sisters of Battle, which already are de facto the female equivalent of the Space Marines.

They're as much female Space Marines as Custodes are to regular Space Marines.

Their aesthetic is completely different, their gameplay is completely different, their background and methods of warfare are completely different, they're physically different, and the focus they get in the wider meta-narrative isn't anywhere near equal.
[…]

That is why I think it is an extremely boring option: it wouldn't add nothing to the lore and to the game

...uh, representation? The whole point of this endeavour?

especially if they were only space marines women in the existent space marines chapters.

Why is that a problem again? We can have men in those Chapters, why not women?

Star Wars got "ruined" because the sequels lacked a coherent story.
Star Trek is a lefty fantasy land that famously tackles social issues constantly and had many minority main characters (Sulu, Uhura, Sisko, etc.)
I haven't read anything about what's happening with Amazon's LotR so I can't comment.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
[…]

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The_Grim_Angel wrote:I must confess I don't understand why Games Workshop should create a female space marines chapter, if we already have the Sisters of Battle, which already are de facto the female equivalent of the Space Marines.

They're as much female Space Marines as Custodes are to regular Space Marines.

Their aesthetic is completely different, their gameplay is completely different, their background and methods of warfare are completely different, they're physically different, and the focus they get in the wider meta-narrative isn't anywhere near equal.
[…]

That is why I think it is an extremely boring option: it wouldn't add nothing to the lore and to the game

...uh, representation? The whole point of this endeavour?

especially if they were only space marines women in the existent space marines chapters.

Why is that a problem again? We can have men in those Chapters, why not women?

Representation of what? I don't understand.
We are talking about a game and in a game the only thing that actually matter is how much it is enjoyable and the fact that the miniatures have a female or male shape doesn't change anything about how much we can have fun with the game itself.

 Grimskul wrote:


Personally though, if they did release female space marines, I probably wouldn't stop playing the game altogether because I only play Orks anyways, but I would dread it becoming start of the slippery slope of what has happened to Star Wars, Star Trek and soon to be LoTR with Amazon's abomination of a TV show with how these franchises get their lore and underpinning stories changed willy nilly because everything has to be seen through the lens of a supposedly utopian ideal of representation.

I don't think diversity in those movies was the problem. It was how badly it was implemented. It kind of reminds me of how they did the Gray Knights and ultramarines codexes a while back with them being all Gary stu's. If Ray had a similar character arc and flaws to Luke then I think it would have been an absolutely fine character. Could be different skills as weaknesses and strengths and can be different character arc but the fact that the character arc had no growth and the character barely had any weaknesses was the main problem with that. If Games workshop just came out and said yeah there is now male and females Space Marines and added one sprue I don't see how that would result in the same unfortunate storyline that Star wars had. Her being a woman wasn't the problem.

The Star Wars sequels failed due to a massive over commitment on Disney's part to being safe and uncontroversial. An unwillingness to commit to Kylo as an antagonist due to his popularity with teens had waaaay more to do with how much of a mess those movies were than anything Rey did.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:Representation of what? I don't understand.

...of women? You know, the topic of the thread?

We are talking about a game

A game that has a severe lack of women's representation.

and in a game the only thing that actually matter is how much it is enjoyable

Uh, no. Maybe that's the case for you, but that's not universal.

And again - representation tends to help people enjoy the hobby more. Because representation's good, yanno?

and the fact that the miniatures have a female or male shape doesn't change anything about how much we can have fun with the game itself.

Actually, it kinda does.

If all the most popular minis have a male shape, that is sending an implicit message that this is a hobby for males. Many men also use the lore to justify exclusionary behaviours. So, perhaps you are lucky enough that you don't notice that bias towards men in the hobby, and the implicit aversion towards women, due to a lack of women's representation, but it very much is there, and that lack of representation and inability for women to access Space Marines in any flavour other than "man" definitely isn't fun.

 Gert wrote:

Spoiler:

 Grimskul wrote:


It's important to note that there are different waves of feminism, and I would argue the latest one has veered significantly off on the origins of the first two waves of feminism, and in many cases I would say have regressed backwards.

I would caution pushing this too far past the original topic though since we are already borderline going into politics territory.

Personally though, if they did release female space marines, I probably wouldn't stop playing the game altogether because I only play Orks anyways, but I would dread it becoming start of the slippery slope of what has happened to Star Wars, Star Trek and soon to be LoTR with Amazon's abomination of a TV show with how these franchises get their lore and underpinning stories changed willy nilly because everything has to be seen through the lens of a supposedly utopian ideal of representation.

I would also hate that other factions get neglected yet again for another unnecessary SM update. I know people are arguing that "oh, it'll just be one upgrade sprue" but let's be real, if it's GW and their cash cow, they rarely half-ass model releases for them and they will have at least a full month of different chapter specific female upgrades that take up the slot of an army that needs actual loving/updating.

Star Wars got "ruined" because the sequels lacked a coherent story.
Star Trek is a lefty fantasy land that famously tackles social issues constantly and had many minority main characters (Sulu, Uhura, Sisko, etc.)
I haven't read anything about what's happening with Amazon's LotR so I can't comment.

Star Wars got ruined by several things, story included as I'm definitely not arguing against that, but you could definitely tell that it followed Hollywood's current narrative of their interpretation of what "strong female characters" are by how they basically get handed things they don't work for with how Rey was written to basically bypass the typical beats of a hero's journey and all the villains being white men of such incompetency that you can barely believe that they're the villains of the sequel trilogy. Nobody had the power and gravitas of Vader, nor the imposing ruthlessness of Tarkin, or the manipulative scheming of Palpatine, who basically went braindead in the last movie of the sequel trilogy.

I have nothing against Star Trek with regards to how they handled social issues before, it was done tastefully IMO compared to how it was done in the current movies, but that's my personal opinion.

@Sgt_Smudge

I do value lore more than representation because fundamentally good storytelling trumps hamfisted representation out of some maligned view that everything you engage with in life must reflect this kind of ideal. It feels like a kind of propaganda that you need this quota to be met and at that point you aren't looking at the characters as people but some checkbox to be ticked. Can you have a good story with a good amount of representation? Of course! And all the more for it! But what I'm seeing here isn't that. It's people who want to retroactively change something with little to no real addition to the lore other than, "Oh btw, there's women now, even though they'll effectively be men as far as their body and mentality goes". I don't see it providing anything of real substance than for the chance to appeal to people who want to have female space marines, who can already effectively have that because GW can't force you to not create your own female space marine chapter. There may be distasteful aspects of the community that crap on people who do this and I don't condone that, but I don't see that as GW's responsibility to address but rather the community's.

Also, when you say that it's not my call to say that a SM update is unnecessary, I'm fairly sure that a significant portion of the WH40K community is suffering from marine fatigue, so as far as majority goes, I think it's a pretty safe bet that a lot of people want their other factions fleshed out first, especially now.

With regards to your argument about GW still prioritizing SM, I think they still would, yes, but the fact that they released the update sprue for Cadians and the recent Necron revamp and SoB release shows me that GW are not only capable but willing to diversify factions that need it and they just need more of a push to balance it out like they are doing so for the releases in AoS at the moment. It's hard to break the inertia of SM all the time, every time, but if they keep up what they're doing now I think it's very possible for SoB and Guard to balance out the spotlight attention from SM. I'd also argue that SM women (particularly the incarnation that you are currently proposing) never existed to begin with soooooo there's no loving or updating to be had for something that doesn't have a presence to begin with. Unlike squats, poor guys.

Grimskul wrote:@Sgt_Smudge

I do value lore more than representation because fundamentally good storytelling trumps hamfisted representation out of some maligned view that everything you engage with in life must reflect this kind of ideal.

What part of Space Marines being all male is fundamentally good though?

You say it's hamfisted to include women, I say that women make up 50% of the population, and not including them is even more artifical and hamfisted.

The reasons they don't exist in the lore are entirely arbitrary, and exist solely to justify a lack of models from decades ago. It's not been this cornerstone of lore, it's not "fundamentally good", and more importantly, made up fiction should not ever be used as an excuse to exclude real life people.

It feels like a kind of propaganda that you need this quota to be met

Women literally exist. The existence of women isn't a quota or political point, it's reality.

and at that point you aren't looking at the characters as people but some checkbox to be ticked.

Or, you know, perhaps women just want to see themselves represented? Have you considered that?

Can you have a good story with a good amount of representation? Of course! And all the more for it! But what I'm seeing here isn't that. It's people who want to retroactively change something with little to no real addition to the lore other than, "Oh btw, there's women now, even though they'll effectively be men as far as their body and mentality goes".

Yeah - but they're not men, because there's no reason for them to be only men. If all you see from this is "we don't need to feature women in our material because they're basically just men", that's exactly the problem I'm discussing. Women deserve to be represented by women, not just men, because women exist in the real world, and make up 50% of the population. Why on earth do we need to sweep them all aside because "they'll effectively be men"?

I don't see it providing anything of real substance than for the chance to appeal to people who want to have female space marines, who can already effectively have that because GW can't force you to not create your own female space marine chapter.

That's literally not how it works at all.

GW can't stop people inventing their own fanon Chapters, but that doesn't help representation in the wider community at all, and it doesn't stop the endless stream of chuds who complain when they see it.

The end point here is equal representation - without official endorsement, that's not representation.

There may be distasteful aspects of the community that crap on people who do this and I don't condone that, but I don't see that as GW's responsibility to address but rather the community's.

On the other hand, I see that those "distasteful aspects" are literally using GW's material to justify and excuse their exclusionary behaviour. If I found out that my setting was being used to do that, I would have a long, strong look at my work and figure out how to prevent that.

Also, when you say that it's not my call to say that a SM update is unnecessary, I'm fairly sure that a significant portion of the WH40K community is suffering from marine fatigue, so as far as majority goes, I think it's a pretty safe bet that a lot of people want their other factions fleshed out first, especially now.

I'm not saying that other updates and avoiding Marine fatigue isn't also necessary. But that doesn't mean that *adding a single sprue* is unnecessary either.

With regards to your argument about GW still prioritizing SM, I think they still would, yes, but the fact that they released the update sprue for Cadians and the recent Necron revamp and SoB release shows me that GW are not only capable but willing to diversify factions that need it and they just need more of a push to balance it out like they are doing so for the releases in AoS at the moment.

See, it's funny you bring up AoS, because their Marine equivalents *are* mixed gender. AoS gets balance much more right than 40k, both in representation, and in faction development.

It's hard to break the inertia of SM all the time, every time, but if they keep up what they're doing now I think it's very possible for SoB and Guard to balance out the spotlight attention from SM.

It's really not. Space Marines are still the main focus of 40k, and of GW as a whole - the presence that Space Marines hold in wider pop culture is staggering.

I'd also argue that SM women (particularly the incarnation that you are currently proposing) never existed to begin with soooooo there's no loving or updating to be had for something that doesn't have a presence to begin with.

They existed at the same time male Space Marines did. They were, unfortunately, left behind, but definitely did exist at one point, even if the concept of Space Marines changed - fundamentally, they were once part of that identity.

If you're going to talk about how the lore is important and shouldn't change, we should start there.

It's amazing that Smudge has to go back to the basic argument of literally, WOMEN EXIST.

Des702 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Why shouldn’t the emperor be a misogynist, he was a complete douche to everyone else, a massive racist, murderer and crushed all rival religions. Misogyny isn’t a big stretch.

The problem with this concept is that it normalizes that behavior. It's fine if it's a straight-up villain being this way because it demonizes that behavior. But fully half the factions and more than half the representation yells out "For the emperor!" And while someone steeped in the lore knows that yeah the emperor was a massive donkey cave and not really what you want to look up to and all the factions are massively flawed and there are no good guys in this setting, people looking to get into the hobby won't have that knowledge very accessible to them.

Besides we've seen when someone in charge, even if they are fictional, is misogynistic and racist it normalizes the behavior to players. I mean we have a fairly outspoken group that does just that and yes while most of it's centered around Arch Warhammer he still is fairly popular.

My female marine back story isn’t what I would suggest gw do. It’s just to trigger the angry sexists like in this thread. In reality GW should make female marines and say that you always could. Total retcon. No apologies, no explanation needed.

 Argive wrote:
If we get a whole new never ending set of kits/upgrades for marines I'm definitely dropping 40k.. I'm fed up with never ending marine releases while im stuck with failcrap models.

People have argued to no end that SOB and guard should be the poster child with new awesome female centric models, and we've yet to see any concession why that is not a viable solution and male only space marines must end...

Me bringing up hail ceasar has to do with 40k. This is because the main argument seems to be that male only space marines facilitate sexist gatekeeping boys-only group which is bad for women.

That argument also has nothing to do with 40k or lore.. But rather based on real world ideology and socio-political viewpoints

If we take it at face value and say there are indeed thousands of bigoted gatekeeper white men(which I certainly disagree with). And they really cant abide by female space marines; So if you eject those gatekeepers from 40k by introducing female space marines , they will go somewhere right?

Its been suggested these groups are somehow organised in some sort of collective way in grups/reddits whatever...
Lets say they go away from 40k and join a new Hail Caesar thing which then becomes wildly successful and other 40k people get attracted to it instead of 40k and it gains wide adoption, do you them to it?

I think its a very valid question.
Is there a representation issue with Hail Caesar?

ould there be an issue with Hail Cesar IF it overtakes 40k in terms of popularity, engagement and hobby uptake?

Including female marines isn’t sexism, it doesn’t oppress you. That’s just stupid. It is simply rebalancing representation. Slightly at that.

And your argument about hail Caesar makes as little sense. You assume that 40K is only the most popular wargame because misogynist bigots play it. Wrong. If they all leave due to female marines it would still be the biggest wargame out there. And saying people would demand representation in an historic wargame? It’s like comparing apples and oranges. We aren’t arguing for changing history. Just a fictional setting ever so slightly. Pretty much asking to change one paragraph first printed in 1989. 13 words in fact are all that need to be changed.

Des702 wrote:

Edit: as for orks... I don't know how you would feminize a faction fully built on poking fun at toxic masculinity.... I know originally they we soccer/football hooligans but it really fits Toxic Masculinity well.

Nothing is really stopping GW from changing that aspect of orks and 40k. As the IP matures and becomes more mainstream, it seems doubtful that most of the 'joke' aspects of older lore will remain.

Looking at the new and upcoming orruks from AoS, they as models don't seem based on a joke. They look dangerous, scary even. There's no reason GW couldn't over time shift orks from "oh, those wacky orks are at it again!" to "oh gak, orks!" And this being 40k, GW could make any sort of handwave to justify this, from Old One interference releasing new or mutating existing spores to Necron interference in an attempt to create more ork infighting, to the increased presence of chaos in the galaxy doing things to the orks, to Eldar shenanigans, etc. Heck if GW were worried about sales, they could just make them a subfaction to include in your Guard, Orks, or Tau armies as mercenaries.

The biggest hurdle would probably be the models since orks/orruks have different proportions than humans which may incline GW to sexualize or humanize them to the point of creating green women. Well, maybe second biggest hurdle, since this thread has demonstrated there's more than enough people who would screech like howler monkeys about more female representation in 40k.

Also, 'Oh gak, Orks!' is a fantastic name for a dungeon crawl game...

 insaniak wrote:
Also, 'Oh gak, Orks!' is a fantastic name for a dungeon crawl game...

I would also love to see a version of Spacehulk: Deathwing, but instead of Nids, have hordes of orks.

Andykp wrote:

Including female marines isn’t sexism, it doesn’t oppress you. That’s just stupid. It is simply rebalancing representation. Slightly at that.

And your argument about hail Caesar makes as little sense. You assume that 40K is only the most popular wargame because misogynist bigots play it. Wrong. If they all leave due to female marines it would still be the biggest wargame out there. And saying people would demand representation in an historic wargame? It’s like comparing apples and oranges. We aren’t arguing for changing history. Just a fictional setting ever so slightly. Pretty much asking to change one paragraph first printed in 1989. 13 words in fact are all that need to be changed.

Why? The 40k Sm are a problem because they are the most popular apparently.
So if hail Caesar was the most popular war game, would change not be required also?
Why is change only requirered if the thing is popular ? Is fiction not allowed to be reflective of history? Or is it only an issue if it becomes popular?

The internal logic to this train of thought doesn't work.

40k is popular because its customer base and hobbyist have made it popular over the last 30+ years across two generations and sunk untold hours and millions into the hobby...
That customer base is also almost exclusively male. Fact.

If you start calling people names just because they don't want the thing they grew up and enjoyed changed, I'm sure many will leave. This thing has been happening across pretty much all the media.
This type of "demand" never ends well when corporations do it not organically. It is always ham-fisted and serves no purposes in improving the experience or the product for the existing customer base pissing everyone on both sides of the fence off.

And just because 13 words don't matter to you or me doesn't mean they don't matter to someone else.

And if the only argument is "well feth their feellings and feth them" then quite farnkly the same can be said of the ones making demands..
Because it all boils down to "my feelings are more valid because..."

That is not how you convince people

 Argive wrote:
Why? The 40k Sm are a problem because they are the most popular apparently.
So if hail Caesar was the most popular war game, would change not be required also?
Why is change only requirered if the thing is popular ? Is fiction not allowed to be reflective of history? Or is it only an issue if it becomes popular?

The internal logic to this train of thought doesn't work.

That's because your 'logic' is a bit like saying 'Well, if I need oil to make mayonnaise, why don't I also need oil to make yoghurt?"

The answer is 'Because they're not the same thing'. Hail Caesar is based in a historical setting, while 40K is space fantasy. For a historical game to accurately represent women, they would include women wherever it was historically appropriate. A fantasy game however doesn't need to adhere to historical record, it can be whatever the creator wants it to be... but if the creator chooses to use that power to exclude a portion of their potential customer base, they're just leaving money on the table.

Sure, fiction is allowed to be reflective of history. But there is no particularly good reason for it to do so in the particular case under discussion, and it makes no sense for it to do so in the wider context of the rest of the setting.

Space Marines are a fantasy representation of a genetically modified super-soldier, created with made up science in a made up setting. There is absolutely no sensible reason for this fantasy to be limited purely to men, just because it was first created 30 years ago when nobody bothered to consider if it might be worth marketing to women at some point.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The_Grim_Angel wrote:Representation of what? I don't understand.

...of women? You know, the topic of the thread?

We are talking about a game

A game that has a severe lack of women's representation.

and in a game the only thing that actually matter is how much it is enjoyable

Uh, no. Maybe that's the case for you, but that's not universal.

And again - representation tends to help people enjoy the hobby more. Because representation's good, yanno?

and the fact that the miniatures have a female or male shape doesn't change anything about how much we can have fun with the game itself.

Actually, it kinda does.

If all the most popular minis have a male shape, that is sending an implicit message that this is a hobby for males. Many men also use the lore to justify exclusionary behaviours. So, perhaps you are lucky enough that you don't notice that bias towards men in the hobby, and the implicit aversion towards women, due to a lack of women's representation, but it very much is there, and that lack of representation and inability for women to access Space Marines in any flavour other than "man" definitely isn't fun.

Are you really playing the discriminatory card to support your point of view?
A game is a game and nobody chose to play or not a game due to his ideological believes, the people play a game only if they enjoy the experience and every time the editor of a game, a comics or whatever decided to shift the focus of its product from the costumer satisfaction to the ideological propaganda, he inevitably lost his costumers. It is what is happening with the US comic industry, in which the publishers decided to put more and more "political" contents in their books, loosing readers and blaming them to be homophobic (even if they are gays) misogynist (even if they are girls) white suprematists (even if they are blacks), only because the costumers want just have fun, while the publishers think to have the right to indoctrinate them.
If you want put some label on me only because I dare talk about game experience, while we are talking about a game, you can; but beware: you don't know me, you don't know my race, my sex, my sexuality, so doing that you run the risk to end like Areva Martin:



P.S. I'm sorry if I seem rude, but I'm really tired about a movie I'have seen too many times.

Mk, so you're going for the "Go Woke, Get Broke" argument?
Yeah, that's utter bunk. You talk about Comics going political when they always have been.
Xmen - Allegory for the Civil Rights Movement.
Captain America - Literally the biggest Anti-Fascist of all time.
Wonder Woman - Feminist icon.
Black Panther - I really shouldn't have to spell this one out.
The 40k game and lore are intertwined because they have to be. You can't have one without the other.
People might get into 40k because of "Pewpew, Space Marines fighting Evil Robots" but the fact that the lore is so appealing to those with certain exclusionary leanings (read as the Fash), can turn the game sour when being a certain way means you're likely to get harassed by a sadly large group within the 40k community. Being able to take part in a hobby and feel safe while doing so isn't "politics". It's common decency.

JUST SO IT IS 100% CLEAR
I am not saying everyone who doesn't want female SM is a fascist. What I AM saying is there is a depressingly large and loud group within the 40k community that continuously harasses those who are not white/straight/cis/male and IMO, having greater representation in the PRIMARY FACTION/MODEL LINE of 40k would do a lot to shut these people up.

Andykp wrote:
In reality GW should make female marines and say that you always could. Total retcon. No apologies, no explanation needed.

GW would never just completely redo an army from the ground up like that. Never. Not even space terminator robots that went from mindless automata to le quirky space Egyptians.

Anyway, marines aren't male, they're transhumans. They physically become better than men. QED they are all women

Cronch wrote:

Andykp wrote:
In reality GW should make female marines and say that you always could. Total retcon. No apologies, no explanation needed.

GW would never just completely redo an army from the ground up like that. Never. Not even space terminator robots that went from mindless automata to le quirky space Egyptians.

Anyway, marines aren't male, they're transhumans. They physically become better than men. QED they are all women

It wouldn’t be a redo, it would be a couple of female heads on the sprue of the next release, maybe a female pronoun in a bit of fluff. Job done. Say no more about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Why? The 40k Sm are a problem because they are the most popular apparently.
So if hail Caesar was the most popular war game, would change not be required also?
Why is change only requirered if the thing is popular ? Is fiction not allowed to be reflective of history? Or is it only an issue if it becomes popular?

The internal logic to this train of thought doesn't work.

That's because your 'logic' is a bit like saying 'Well, if I need oil to make mayonnaise, why don't I also need oil to make yoghurt?"

The answer is 'Because they're not the same thing'. Hail Caesar is based in a historical setting, while 40K is space fantasy. For a historical game to accurately represent women, they would include women wherever it was historically appropriate. A fantasy game however doesn't need to adhere to historical record, it can be whatever the creator wants it to be... but if the creator chooses to use that power to exclude a portion of their potential customer base, they're just leaving money on the table.

Sure, fiction is allowed to be reflective of history. But there is no particularly good reason for it to do so in the particular case under discussion, and it makes no sense for it to do so in the wider context of the rest of the setting.

Space Marines are a fantasy representation of a genetically modified super-soldier, created with made up science in a made up setting. There is absolutely no sensible reason for this fantasy to be limited purely to men, just because it was first created 30 years ago when nobody bothered to consider if it might be worth marketing to women at some point.

What insaniak said, your whole argument is based on utterly flawed logic. The issue isn’t that it’s popular so must be representative. It’s that it’s popular and unnecessarily unrepresentative to the point of excluding people. It isn’t a representation of a historical setting. Don’t be absurd.

If those 13 words are so important to people then they need to have a long look at their priorities. It’s a pathetic state of affairs if they are. I took the time to re-read all the implants and procedures that were in the article I posted a bit of before. Zero mention of testosterone, zero (with even a limited understanding of biology) need for male hosts at all.

P.S.

I have an anatomy degree and am a medical professional so have a limited understanding of biology.

Argive wrote:Why? The 40k Sm are a problem because they are the most popular apparently.

The most popular and visible 40k faction, yes. This is specifically important because we're discussing about 40k on a 40k subforum.

So if hail Caesar was the most popular war game, would change not be required also?

I'm not going to bother repeating Insaniak, but I'll instead say - can you read what forum this is? You might have noticed the words that say "40k Background". Last I checked, Hail Caesar isn't 40k Background, or really anything to do with 40k. Whatever happens to another game, I have no idea about, and isn't important when discussing an issue with 40k's lore, any more so than discussing D&D is.

Why is change only requirered if the thing is popular ?

That's not what anyone said. People are calling for *representation*, because it's popular. You're ignoring why people want the change in the first place.
The goal is representation. The only way to get effective fair representation is to do so in the most visible ways. Space Marines are the most visible, and popular (or vice versa).

Is fiction not allowed to be reflective of history? Or is it only an issue if it becomes popular?

But 40k isn't a historical game, so the point is meaningless here. Not to mention your lack of understanding on why people are asking for change.

The internal logic to this train of thought doesn't work.

It doesn't work because you're shifting the goalposts, and don't recognise what people are asking for.

40k is popular because its customer base and hobbyist have made it popular over the last 30+ years across two generations and sunk untold hours and millions into the hobby...

And what part of Space Marines needing to be male has anything to do with that? Are you implying that 40k is only popular because of Space Marines only being men? Why would women Space Marines jeopardise the "untold hours and millions" invested in the hobby? Why would anyone feel threatened by that?

That customer base is also almost exclusively male. Fact.

Have you considered *why* that is? Perhaps, you know, because women's representation in 40k has been utterly abysmal for the majority of those 30+ years, and the implicit "boys club" mentality has driven many women away?

It's not that women don't like playing with little war dollies. AoS has a much more diverse audience and player base. But 40k - not so much.

If you start calling people names just because they don't want the thing they grew up and enjoyed changed, I'm sure many will leave. This thing has been happening across pretty much all the media.

The only thing being changed here is "women can be Space Marines". Did you enjoy that? Why?

Many may leave, but if they're leaving because they can't handle women Space Marines, is that really someone's opinion you should be listening to?

This type of "demand" never ends well when corporations do it not organically. It is always ham-fisted and serves no purposes in improving the experience or the product for the existing customer base pissing everyone on both sides of the fence off.

Hang on, why is *including* women hamfisted and inorganic, but making up fictional rules to say how women can't be super soldiers isn't?

"Improving the product" - adding women does improve the product, by providing representation and freedom. Do you think adding women Astartes would make it worse?
"Existing customer base" - why would adding women Astartes annoy the current customer base? They're just women.

And just because 13 words don't matter to you or me doesn't mean they don't matter to someone else.

Why does women not being able to be Space Marines matter? Why do those 13 words mean more to you than women feeling excluded?

And if the only argument is "well feth their feellings and feth them" then quite farnkly the same can be said of the ones making demands..
Because it all boils down to "my feelings are more valid because..."

That is not how you convince people

You're right - so why are you telling women to "feth their feelings and feth them" because they want representation, and that your feelings about 13 words of lore are more valid than they are?

End of the day, one side here is asking for fair representation of real human beings. The other doesn't want to change some made up writing.
I don't think it's hard to see why one is a little more important than the other.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:Are you really playing the discriminatory card to support your point of view?

I'm stating facts. Women, on the whole, are discriminated against in this hobby, and that's a fact.

A game is a game

So why are there complaints when people want representation in it? After all, it's "just a game", it shouldn't be a problem?

and nobody chose to play or not a game due to his ideological believes

Not quite true. A game that outright promotes hateful ideologies is a game I'm not touching.

the people play a game only if they enjoy the experience

You know what might help women enjoy their experience? Representation.

and every time the editor of a game, a comics or whatever decided to shift the focus of its product from the costumer satisfaction to the ideological propaganda, he inevitably lost his costumers. It is what is happening with the US comic industry, in which the publishers decided to put more and more "political" contents in their books, loosing readers and blaming them to be homophobic (even if they are gays) misogynist (even if they are girls) white suprematists (even if they are blacks), only because the costumers want just have fun, while the publishers think to have the right to indoctrinate them.

The "get woke, go broke" narrative simply isn't accurate though. Look at current edition D&D - arguably the most woke the game's ever been, especially with Tasha's Cauldron, and it's wildly wildly popular - between all manners of people, not just white men.

The US comic industry isn't failing because of "wokeness", it's failing because the medium itself is. The actual heroes and characters are flourishing just fine on the silver screen - was Endgame not the highest grossing film (can't remember if it still is or not)?

But this is irrelevant. Why? Because representing 50% of the population in your game isn't "political". Adding women to 40k would be a move towards exceptional normality, and if anything, excluding women for hamfisted reasons is the more political choice to make. Including women isn't "indoctrination". It's customer satisfaction - satisfaction of the women audience who want to feel represented.

What I'm having a problem understanding is why including women into a place where they have every right to be would possibly anger people or annoy existing consumers.

P.S. I'm sorry if I seem rude, but I'm really tired about a movie I'have seen too many times.

And I'm really tired in having to trot out that the existence of women isn't some political plot or issue. It's simple representation.

Why does anyone care so much about having to keep women out of their special power armoured club?

I feel like on the opposite side of the table here there is going to be two main camps. Those who just want to keep the boys club which I hope that would be a fairly small portion of this side. And the other half would be those who are worried about how it would be implemented and how it would affect the lore. We have seen how Hollywood can royally screwed up a beloved franchise storyline with terrible representation. Star wars being a good example of that. It also doesn't help that they moved all of the existing fiction to Legends other than the main movies.

But if they implement great characters like we've seen in the past with the aliens franchise and the older Star Trek stuff (I haven't seen the new stuff so I'm not sure) I think it could be done really well. It can do justice to the lower but also bring the representation that this setting sorely needs.

Star Wars wasn't "ruined" because they made Rey and Finn the main characters. Rey took exactly the same journey Luke did only she beat Kylo with a lightsaber instead of blowing up a Death Star. The sequels weren't good because Disney was too scared of making the old guard mad by making a new story, then they got mad anyway cos 7 was a repeat of 4, then 8 was a new story that people got mad about cos it wasn't 5, and 9 was just flat out awful.
Legends was never considered canon anyway and until Disney took a more public role in the franchise the only canon material was the movies.

What I'm saying here is this, you will always annoy someone with changes made to any game/story/setting/lore/thing. If the change allows more people to enjoy said thing and feel welcomed then that is a better option. If said thing is toy soldiers that you know people with disposable income will buy into time and time again, then upsetting some of the old guard is not a concern.

Star Wars would've been just as horrible with literally using luke, leia and vader instead of rey, finn and kylo because the problem wasn't that the characters were female or black but because the plot was written by people whose only goal was to maximize profits and avoid any possible controversy (which they got anyway because they underestimated just how mad at women part of SW fandom is).

 Gert wrote:
Star Wars wasn't "ruined" because they made Rey and Finn the main characters. Rey took exactly the same journey Luke did only she beat Kylo with a lightsaber instead of blowing up a Death Star. The sequels weren't good because Disney was too scared of making the old guard mad by making a new story, then they got mad anyway cos 7 was a repeat of 4, then 8 was a new story that people got mad about cos it wasn't 5, and 9 was just flat out awful.
Legends was never considered canon anyway and until Disney took a more public role in the franchise the only canon material was the movies.

What I'm saying here is this, you will always annoy someone with changes made to any game/story/setting/lore/thing. If the change allows more people to enjoy said thing and feel welcomed then that is a better option. If said thing is toy soldiers that you know people with disposable income will buy into time and time again, then upsetting some of the old guard is not a concern.

I think part of what makes the sequel trilogy so horrible is because it not only can't stand on its own as a trilogy given how disjointed it is from having multiple directors and lack of a cohesive planned narrative between the 3 movies, but that it fundamentally undermines the previous 2 trilogies message of redemption and Anakin's arc as the Chosen One. Anakin fulfills his purpose of balancing the force at the end of RotJ, but The Rise of Skywalker just comes in and undoes that with "LOL, Palpy Respawn go BRR". Luke becoming a bitter, jaded hermit also completely contradicts his character arc in the OG trilogy, where he sees the good in Vader, a literal mass murderer and right hand of the Empire who endangers his friend's lives on a daily basis, and chooses to basically put his trust in him at the very end that allows Anakin to re-emerge to stop Palpatine, whereas in TLJ, Luke seeing darkness in Ben, who hasn't even committed any actual crimes yet, he just instinctually goes "I gotta murder this boy!" It doesn't make any sense.

It pretty much took fan favourite characters and regressed them and included them as cameo characters because they wanted to draw in people with the nostalgia factor without respecting their character's development up until this point.

 Gert wrote:
Star Wars wasn't "ruined" because they made Rey and Finn the main characters. Rey took exactly the same journey Luke did only she beat Kylo with a lightsaber instead of blowing up a Death Star. The sequels weren't good because Disney was too scared of making the old guard mad by making a new story, then they got mad anyway cos 7 was a repeat of 4, then 8 was a new story that people got mad about cos it wasn't 5, and 9 was just flat out awful.
Legends was never considered canon anyway and until Disney took a more public role in the franchise the only canon material was the movies.

What I'm saying here is this, you will always annoy someone with changes made to any game/story/setting/lore/thing. If the change allows more people to enjoy said thing and feel welcomed then that is a better option. If said thing is toy soldiers that you know people with disposable income will buy into time and time again, then upsetting some of the old guard is not a concern.

While I agree the seventh movie wasn't that bad of the trilogy. Ray was definitely better than Luke and a lot more ways. She was a decent pilot that was able to fly a broken down millennium falcon and later was able to repair part of it. Then she was able to tap in and use the force something Luke wasn't able to do until later in the trilogy. Then she was able to beat a very competent swordsman (granted he had just taken a bow caster to the stomach and that's kind of how I justified it). The only other useful thing Luke did was blow up one tie fighter out of three.

I think the characters of Finn and Ray could have been excellent. For Finn I believe they treated him too much like comic relief which is unfair, but a very Disney thing to do. And Rey didn't have anything to grow into. What is she really better at later on that she was wasn't decent that on her own. Luke was a trash sword fighter and couldn't use the force at all but later on he gained those skills. Rai seemed to have a decent amount of those skills to begin with.

Bringing it back to Warhammer I just hope the bring in competent female Space Marine characters with their own flaws and skills.

Luke blew up the Death Star using the Force to get the perfect timing to launch his proton bombs, it's one of the most famous lines in 4. Luke was also a good pilot despite only ever flying what was basically a speeder. Also, Kylo was only ever shown beating people with little to no saber training and struggling at that. That's the one thing 8 did well with him was berate him for being so useless despite his aspirations to be Vader. He destroyed the rebuilt Jedi order with the Knights (who were also a huge misstep) which is basically the same as Vader murdering the kids in 3.

As for GW, the entire concept of SM is based around them being unbeatable in literally every story they are in. Not sure how adding an option for female SM is going to change that.

Des702 wrote:Bringing it back to Warhammer I just hope the bring in competent female Space Marine characters with their own flaws and skills.

I hope they're treated like all the current crop of Space Marines are.

And also wanting for more interesting stories from Space Marines of all stripes, male or female, instead of "bang bang, shooty shooty".

I never said it would. I'm on the side of female Space Marines I just really hope they implement it well and don't make another caldor Drago or what Calgar used to be. And that goes for all new characters or all existing characters for the Warhammer storyline.

One last thing and I'll leave the Star wars stuff alone. Earlier in that episode Obi-Wan Kenobi was teaching Luke to reach out with his feelings and to sense when to act. He then later uses that feeling to fire that one shot which is the one thing he did that was remotely Jedi like. The next episode even after having lightsaber training he still gets his butt handed to him by the big Baddy. Kylo never has any teeth other than peons he never beats anyone of significance. And it could be argued that Ray and Finn are not bad characters but kylo is which also hurts the franchise. A hero epic is only as strong as its villain. In this case I feel like the hero was a bit too strong and the villain was woefully too weak.

Rogue one is rarely ever criticized because even though it had a female lead she had flaws and strengths she was a compelling character, and the villain was strong and had flaws and had strength and he was a compelling character.

 Gert wrote:
Luke blew up the Death Star using the Force to get the perfect timing to launch his proton bombs, it's one of the most famous lines in 4. Luke was also a good pilot despite only ever flying what was basically a speeder. Also, Kylo was only ever shown beating people with little to no saber training and struggling at that. That's the one thing 8 did well with him was berate him for being so useless despite his aspirations to be Vader. He destroyed the rebuilt Jedi order with the Knights (who were also a huge misstep) which is basically the same as Vader murdering the kids in 3.

As for GW, the entire concept of SM is based around them being unbeatable in literally every story they are in. Not sure how adding an option for female SM is going to change that.

Tbf, Luke blowing up the DS was definitely a fluke and a demonstration of his connection to the force to guide the shot and he was only able to get the opportunity to pull off that move because of Han saving his bacon from Vader shooting him down from behind. Hence the whole Obi-Wan ghost voice of "Use the Force Luke" prior to him taking the shot.

In terms of SM, I don't know anybody arguing that adding female SM would change GW's favouritism towards SM victories in their stories? I thought it was more the idea that people were against fem SM because it changes the lore based on perceived representation issues of the setting that could be addressed elsewhere but the fact that SM is popular means we get into a kind of circular conundrum of them being poster boys so they have to have females, since its believed that they would never raise other factions up enough to their level that people would be satisfied with the attention being brought towards women. I dunno, that's what I've managed to keep up with so far.

Honestly, after 24 pages of I don't know how many tangents, I don't blame you or anybody else for mixing up for what arguments are whose are anymore. I'm cool with just agreeing to disagree.

 insaniak wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Why? The 40k Sm are a problem because they are the most popular apparently.
So if hail Caesar was the most popular war game, would change not be required also?
Why is change only requirered if the thing is popular ? Is fiction not allowed to be reflective of history? Or is it only an issue if it becomes popular?

The internal logic to this train of thought doesn't work.

That's because your 'logic' is a bit like saying 'Well, if I need oil to make mayonnaise, why don't I also need oil to make yoghurt?"

The answer is 'Because they're not the same thing'. Hail Caesar is based in a historical setting, while 40K is space fantasy. For a historical game to accurately represent women, they would include women wherever it was historically appropriate. A fantasy game however doesn't need to adhere to historical record, it can be whatever the creator wants it to be... but if the creator chooses to use that power to exclude a portion of their potential customer base, they're just leaving money on the table.

Sure, fiction is allowed to be reflective of history. But there is no particularly good reason for it to do so in the particular case under discussion, and it makes no sense for it to do so in the wider context of the rest of the setting.

Space Marines are a fantasy representation of a genetically modified super-soldier, created with made up science in a made up setting. There is absolutely no sensible reason for this fantasy to be limited purely to men, just because it was first created 30 years ago when nobody bothered to consider if it might be worth marketing to women at some point.

That is a false equivalency of my point and you know it.
They are both war games.
They are not the same wargame, but they are both wargames involving miniatures and dice.
40k is a war game.
They are for all intents and purposes the same thing.
Its not apples and oranges. Its comparing golden delicious apples and granny smiths apples.
The only difference seem to be that one is set in the future and is vastly popular and one one is set in the past and is not so popular. That's it. But apparently because its in the future creators have to adhere to certain rules? That's crazy...

You admit creators can make whatever they want, but in the very same post say that unless there is a good reason they need to change what they create?
Reasons of biology/historical relevance are dismissed because it doesn't fit the inclusion narrative "and doesn't have to be that way". But it just is that way..
I don't think 40k creators did this to gate keep women out. I think they did this in order to maximise profits by selling plastic toy super soldier to young lads who are much more inclined towards toy soldiers and like the fantasy of fighting aliens. This has been discussed ad nauseum.. .

But lets say i agree with this notion.

I think the proposed change is very disingenuous and unrealistic.
Lets say they change the "13 words of lore" and make an upgrade sprue "just one sprue is all we want!"

And GW NEVER address this again. All publications & things continue as they are. Will people be happy ? How long will this status quo exist? Will it not be a case of "not enough representation" again within a year?

Will we not need a never ending stream of updated SM units and character models going through arbitrary gender swaps and narrative focusing even more on SM in order to kill off existing characters, and replace them with someone more palatable? We know how this ends. And all that to satisfy 4 people who want to play girl space marines? (which they can already do..)

The objective with changing SM does not appear to be inclusivity.
If it was, people would want to focus on Guard and SOB and Eldar and TAU and bring them to prominence and overshadow SM with new models featuring females.
Its a noble goal, and pretty much everyone seems in favour and its also good for the overall setting and game.

But: "Destroy notion of boy only SM because some socially awkward people looks at me funny when I make girl space marines and not follow lore" is not a worthy goal IMO.
Sorry.

 Argive wrote:

That is a false equivalency of my point and you know it.

Don't use words you don't understand the meaning of my man, which is demonstrated thoroughly by the fact that you yourself are committing a false equivalency by comparing adding women to a made-up fantasy setting and adding them to a setting deliberately made to resemble real-life historical events.

If you can't recognize the difference between the two settings and why adding women in the latter is worse than the former than you are either being intellectually dishonest or are just something the mods at Dakka here won't let me call you.

Des702 wrote:I never said it would. I'm on the side of female Space Marines I just really hope they implement it well and don't make another caldor Drago or what Calgar used to be. And that goes for all new characters or all existing characters for the Warhammer storyline.

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you! Just putting forwards that I literally just want the same stuff between men and women.

Argive wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The answer is 'Because they're not the same thing'. Hail Caesar is based in a historical setting, while 40K is space fantasy. For a historical game to accurately represent women, they would include women wherever it was historically appropriate. A fantasy game however doesn't need to adhere to historical record, it can be whatever the creator wants it to be... but if the creator chooses to use that power to exclude a portion of their potential customer base, they're just leaving money on the table.

Sure, fiction is allowed to be reflective of history. But there is no particularly good reason for it to do so in the particular case under discussion, and it makes no sense for it to do so in the wider context of the rest of the setting.

Space Marines are a fantasy representation of a genetically modified super-soldier, created with made up science in a made up setting. There is absolutely no sensible reason for this fantasy to be limited purely to men, just because it was first created 30 years ago when nobody bothered to consider if it might be worth marketing to women at some point.

That is a false equivalency of my point and you know it.
They are both war games.
They are not the same wargame, but they are both wargames involving miniatures and dice.
40k is a war game.
They are for all intents and purposes the same thing.
Its not apples and oranges. Its comparing golden delicious apples and granny smiths apples.
The only difference seem to be that one is set in the future and is vastly popular and one one is set in the past and is not so popular. That's it. But apparently because its in the future creators have to adhere to certain rules? That's crazy...

... yes. Like, literally, yes, that's exactly it.

If 40k's "lore" was reflective of anything that wasn't pulled out of the writer's ass, you could argue that it does have certain things to take into account. But 40k is a made up setting, and any restrictions or prohibitions or rules are also made up, pulled out of a writer's ass, or however you want to describe it.

Them both being war games is entirely irrelevant, because not all war games depict the same wars - indeed, some of these wars are entirely fictional. I'm genuinely astounded that you think that's enough to call them the same thing.

You admit creators can make whatever they want, but in the very same post say that unless there is a good reason they need to change what they create?

Why shouldn't they be more representative? What possible reason is there to keep Space Marines all male?

Reasons of biology/historical relevance are dismissed because it doesn't fit the inclusion narrative "and doesn't have to be that way".

They're goddamn made up fictional super soldiers with made up fictional super soldier serum that helps them grow their made up fictional organs so they can go off and wear made up fictional power armour to fight made up fictional aliens.

Reasons of biology and historical relevance have no place here, because (repeat after me, kids!) it's all a made up fictional setting.

But it just is that way.

No, it's not. You act like the lore spontaneously exploded into existence, and therefore, immutably is.
It's not. The lore exists because some writer gakked out a half-assed explanation why his company didn't sell women Space Marines. It's all made up, it's all fictional, and therefore has no weight under it's own merit. If you want to defend the lore, you've got to bring more to the table than "because it is".

Justify to me why Space Marines need to be male. Don't use the lore to do it, use literally anything else. And then compare that reason to "because women literally exist, and representation is important" as to why there should be women Astartes.

I don't think 40k creators did this to gate keep women out. I think they did this in order to maximise profits by selling plastic toy super soldier to young lads who are much more inclined towards toy soldiers and like the fantasy of fighting aliens. This has been discussed ad nauseum.. .

To maximise profits decades ago, yes. But it's a whole new *millenium* now, and considering how popular more diverse settings are with audiences beyond your standard "young lads", and how we're seeing plenty of women inclined towards toy soldiers and the fantasy of fighting (almost like they always could have been inclined, but felt pushed away by horribly regressive marketing practices!!), acting like there's no way that women would be interested in women Space Marines because they're *gasp!*, women, maybe that reason they pulled that exclusionary lore out of their ass isn't valid any more.

Just a thought.

I think the proposed change is very disingenuous and unrealistic.
Lets say they change the "13 words of lore" and make an upgrade sprue "just one sprue is all we want!"

And GW NEVER address this again. All publications & things continue as they are. Will people be happy ? How long will this status quo exist? Will it not be a case of "not enough representation" again within a year?

Yes. Like, literally, just getting rid of those 13 words, adding a women's head sprue, and then, whenever Space Marines happen to be featured in something*, the newly canonised women also appear in that material, we're all fine.

*And that's not me calling for kits to be updated, or books to be rewritten. Just when new kits are made, and when new books are written, and when there's a new Space Marine video game or animation or other kind of 4ok media - that they feature the women that they just made canon.

That's all.

Will we not need a never ending stream of updated SM units and character models going through arbitrary gender swaps and narrative focusing even more on SM in order to kill off existing characters, and replace them with someone more palatable?

No. All that's needed is *when* new stuff comes out, and it will, that it follows the trend. That's not anyone asking for new updated units or a new focus on SM. Only that when SM eventually do get new stuff, and they invariably will, at some unforeseen point, that women appear in the lineup.

We know how this ends.

No, you've made a strawman to attack. Everyone else knows this.

And all that to satisfy 4 people who want to play girl space marines? (which they can already do..)

It's far more than four - but thanks for being disingenuous!

The objective with changing SM does not appear to be inclusivity.
If it was, people would want to focus on Guard and SOB and Eldar and TAU and bring them to prominence and overshadow SM with new models featuring females.
Its a noble goal, and pretty much everyone seems in favour and its also good for the overall setting and game.

You've clearly had your ears plugged and eyes plucked, because you'd know why focusing on factions with existing inclusivity isn't enough.

But, in case you need the reminder, I'll go through why:
1. There is no good reason for Space Marines to be all male in the first place. The lore is made up, and doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny that you, or anyone else here, can defend against. You seem to be under the impression that Space Marines should be all male by default. This is not true - factions should be gender-neutral by default, and you should be explaining why a faction should be only one gender.

2. Space Marines are uniquely customisable. No other faction has quite as many resources open to it, from models to background, that Space Marines do to accommodate for player individuality and freedom. This is something that Sisters, Guardsmen, Eldar and Tau simply do not have by their own design as factions, unless you either drastically change their faction design, or in the case of the Guard, pump obscene amounts of money into.

3. Representation requires visibility. Representing women in a minor faction doesn't do that.

4. The effort it would take to elevate all those other factions to anywhere near the level of pop culture celebrity that Space Marines possess would be astronomically expensive, time consuming, and most importantly, devalues the marketing power of the Space Marine. GW know the power of marketing and iconography, and Space Marines happen to be excellent marketing vehicles (largely because of point 2). By elevating other factions, GW blows massive amounts of money on needing to create models, lore, subcodexes, Horus-Heresy-length novel series, artwork, promotional material, external media sources, rebranding and redesigning their flagship game and stripping themselves of one of their most iconic pieces of merchandise...

... when they could have changed 13 words of outdated lore and added a new sprue.

It's simply not economical to do.

But: "Destroy notion of boy only SM because some socially awkward people looks at me funny when I make girl space marines and not follow lore" is not a worthy goal IMO.
Sorry.

I mean, by all means, call yourself socially awkward, but when those social awkward people do far more than "look at me funny" (and you're delusional if you think that's all it is), then there's a bit of a problem going on.

You know that's a ridiculously reductive take - I've explained repeatedly what the reason for changing the lore is, and the importance of doing so with Space Marines. If you're unable to process that, you really ought to step away. It's not even worth humouring these increasingly outlandish and misrepresentative posts any more..

Yeah, they are both TTWG. That's where the similarities end. They play by different rules when it comes to telling a story with the games/minis. 40k is a Scifi TTWG set in the far future where the only thing that matters to the Imperium is that you are human and you serve the Emperor. It's fantasy and doesn't have to abide by real-world history because it is made up. HC is a historical wargame that abides by real-world history which covers the Bronze Age to the War of the Roses. There were women warriors in the "barbaric cultures" i.e. Celts but because of real-world social attitudes at the time women were to be homemakers and child-bearers.
I know the History channel ain't to strong on the actual history front but the fact that you can't tell the difference between history and fantasy worries me a bit.


Correct, GW did do away with female SM nearly 30 years ago, in which time social attitudes have changed quite a bit, and the culture around 40k has become "gate-keepy" because of certain groups of fans. So in the modern-day both to maximise profits and try to present itself as a modern progressive company that doesn't believe in outdated social attitudes GW should really be making its flagship product (40k SM) more inclusive to the other 50% of the human population because there isn't a chance in hell that anything else is going to come along and knock the most marketable product they have off its perch.


Nobody is happy forever. But to answer the question properly, SM are going to get neverending support anyway why not just put the option for female models in there? Throw another bunch of SM characters in and the SM players will be happy because more toys. The biggest issue is that SM have grown to the point where any more release, female or otherwise, just reinforces their position as an extremely bloated faction that takes up 50% of the game that needs half its model line axed as soon as possible.
Nobody is saying "Make Calgar a woman", that's a disingenuous point and you know it.
Also, "We know how this ends"? WT does that even mean?
It's not just so players can model them, TBH for me it's about getting rid of the disgusting part of the fanbase that sends death threats to hobbyists who make female SM now.


I mean it straight up is inclusivity and in case you can't read, the number of times people in this thread have said "do the other factions first for the love of God please no more SM", is in the low hundreds at this point.
If you can think of a way to make women hobbyists feel safer in the 40k community be my guest.

So this all "Seems" to boil down to two ways of thinking it, a true dichotomy.

One group, the "Social justice crowd", because again lets no mince words this is exactly the people that are pushing this excuses aside.

Vs

The ones who wish the setting and background to be kept free from the politicisation of the setting for the "Activists" and prevent it from being used as yet another "platform" as other franchises have been.

Thing is if we simply just say "no" to the "Activists" in the same manner in which they keep pushing what then? they have no moral authority, we already know its not about the inclusivity, that's a front, the "Motte" so to speak, the actual aim is control of the platform in order to push whatever the flavour of the month is to the "activist", the "Bailey" that is so obvious.

Thing is, we know this, they know we know this, we know they know that we know they know this and they know we know they know this too, so why 25 pages of games and putting up a front, what ultimately is the point, this wont be agreed upon, no consensus will be achieved, the "gatekeepers" as they have been called will continue to push the "social justice" people back and the "social justice" people will continue trying to gain control of the "platform" until either they are barred or succeed.

Again this is nothing to do with "representation" or "inclusivity" "morality" "fairness" etc. we all know this, we reject that framing out of hand entirely for the falsehood it is and doubly so because it is so obvious to anyone who even slightly pays attention to these things, can we not just be honest in our intentions and if so the honest interpretation is as simple as this.

"Social justice" group: we want to control the setting and universe so we can use it as a platform for our activism as we believe that power is the ultimate form of political expression, if we do not have the power, we are duty bound to force change by any means necessary in order to gain said power.

Non "social justice group": We do not agree with the above as we do not wish the thing we like to be used as a political platform, this is because we see such things happening very often in other fandoms and franchises, we do not agree with your framing or reasons for doing so as we have experienced at length the ramifications of said actions and do not wish the same for this particular franchise, if you do not like this then please respect our wishes and leave the status quo alone.

I know these points will be ignored, I know they will be deliberately miscontsrued and mis represented by the ideologically possessed but as I said years ago on this very forum when I warned that this exact thing was coming as it did for other franchises, I would be remiss if I did not at least try.

 Formosa wrote:
So this all "Seems" to boil down to two ways of thinking it, a true dichotomy.

One group, the "Social justice crowd", because again lets no mince words this is exactly the people that are pushing this excuses aside.

Vs

The ones who wish the setting and background to be kept free from the politicisation of the setting for the "Activists" and prevent it from being used as yet another "platform" as other franchises have been.

Oh, so you're not even trying to hide the bias?

We can do this one of two ways: we apply your "not mincing words" to both, and we go for "SJWs versus the bigots", or we can be "truthful" about this, something more like:

"Those who want representation for real world people for their enjoyment" versus "those who think having women in media is somehow political".
Or perhaps "those who know the lore is made up, and isn't an excuse for excluding real people" versus "those who value made up words over those real people"

I can do this all day. Point is, you're very clearly being very intellectually dishonest in your framing, and I'm highlighting that.

Thing is if we simply just say "no" to the "Activists" in the same manner in which they keep pushing what then?

Then I ask why? What possible reasons do you have?

I've asked this of y'all for a while, and all I seem to have gotten is misrepresentations, complete misunderstandings (either out of malice or ignorance), and avoidance of the question.

You have every right to say "no", but everyone can see the flimsiness when you do.

they have no moral authority, we already know its not about the inclusivity, that's a front, the "Motte" so to speak, the actual aim is control of the platform in order to push whatever the flavour of the month is to the "activist", the "Bailey" that is so obvious.

You mean it's the only way your mind can possibly understand the situation, so you make up motives and conspiracies to lend yourself a glimmer of legitimacy in your point?

"We already know" - no, you just refuse to accept it. Your lack of moral awareness is your problem, not mine.

Thing is, we know this, they know we know this, we know they know that we know they know this and they know we know they know this too, so why 25 pages of games and putting up a front, what ultimately is the point, this wont be agreed upon, no consensus will be achieved, the "gatekeepers" as they have been called will continue to push the "social justice" people back and the "social justice" people will continue trying to gain control of the "platform" until either they are barred or succeed.

Again, carry on with the conspiracies, bud. I'm sure it's definitely you who's pulled back the wool on this great SJW conspiracy and there's no other possible explanation.

Come on folks, the jig's up, our big SJW conspiracy has been called out! It was fun while it lasted, but nope, I guess it was all a big conspiracy to "gain control" with some nebulous motives?

Again this is nothing to do with "representation" or "inclusivity" "morality" "fairness" etc.

U sure about that hun?

we all know this

Do we?

we reject that framing out of hand entirely for the falsehood it is and doubly so because it is so obvious to anyone who even slightly pays attention to these things, can we not just be honest in our intentions and if so the honest interpretation is as simple as this.

We are being honest. Sorry if you can't understand how people just want representation, but that's honestly not my problem.

"Social justice" group: we want to control the setting and universe so we can use it as a platform for our activism as we believe that power is the ultimate form of political expression, if we do not have the power, we are duty bound to force change by any means necessary in order to gain said power.

Alternatively: "we'd love if everyone felt welcome in this hobby and setting, and having a visibly inclusive faction at the forefront would be great. And if we can get rid of some of the ammunition that people use to exclude people implicitly, that would be great too!"

But I admit, yours has this nice sense of moral panic and framing yourself as the brave plucky underdogs fighting against this insidious regime. Shame it's just as fictional as the reasons women can't be Space Marines.

Non "social justice group": We do not agree with the above as we do not wish the thing we like to be used as a political platform, this is because we see such things happening very often in other fandoms and franchises, we do not agree with your framing or reasons for doing so as we have experienced at length the ramifications of said actions and do not wish the same for this particular franchise, if you do not like this then please respect our wishes and leave the status quo alone.

Alternatively: "we care more about made up words than the real people we (sometimes) claim to be inclusive to, and if you don't worship the lore, you don't belong in this hobby because you're clearly some SJW agent sent to destroy the hobby entirely".

I repeat again, as you say "political platform" - women's existence isn't political. I don't know why you seem to think that having women in your fictional army is somehow political.

I'd also like to say that, just on record, "leaving the status quo alone" is a political stance - but I'm sure you're aware of that.

I know these points will be ignored

Ignored? No. Treated with contempt? Certainly.

I know they will be deliberately miscontsrued and mis represented by the ideologically possessed

It's be such an awful thing if that were to happen, wouldn't it?

Shame that you have experience in deliberately misrepresenting and misconstruing points, but I've tried as best I can to learn from you!

but as I said years ago on this very forum when I warned that this exact thing was coming as it did for other franchises, I would be remiss if I did not at least try.

Finished with your little soapbox, are we? Finished painting yourself as a martyr against these hordes of seething SJWs coming to loot and pillage your fictional universes? I hope you got as much of a laugh out of it as I did.

I'd just like to re-iterate my question: why is having women Space Marines bad? Why are women seen as "political"? Why do Space Marines have to be men? Why is lore more valuable than real life people? And who let the dogs out?

40k has always been political you've either just ignored it or don't know it's there. It makes very clear that the state humanity lives in in-universe is a horrible and pathetic existence where they have no control over their lives or freedom. The right-wing fantasy of a God-fearing fascist dictatorship is openly ridiculed in every possible way but modern 40k is absolutely missing so much of that it hurts. Only with the perspective of Guilliman and his still pretty fascist but slightly less fascist ideals has the Imperium been properly portrayed as awful.
Also, social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political, and social rights and opportunities. If there are people actively being excluded from enjoying a hobby then that is unacceptable. It's not some power trip, it's a legitimate concern that when certain groups of people get involved in the hobby they are shunned/harrassed/threatened.


See above.


If you see people wanting to make 40k more inclusive of others at the expense of 13 words of lore from roughly 20 years ago, then I am truly sorry for you. The funniest part is that you think you control 40k because you want it to stay the same forever. You never controlled it in the first place and you never will.


Lmao, you make it sound like people who want female SM are going to break into your house, tie you to a chair and beat you with baseball bats because you disagree with them. Get out of here with your fake moral superiority and come back when women and minorities can enjoy the hobby without getting death threats.


God, you want to be oppressed so hard, don't you?
Does it make it easier to spew nonsense like this if you think the big bad SJW's are coming to get you? Some people just like to hobby without getting doxxed and sent death threats because they put some SoB heads on some Primaris.

The ones who wish the setting and background to be kept free from the politicisation of the setting

What part of a setting that focuses entirely on a xenophobic, totalitarian regime is apolitical to you? Having marines be only male is already a political statement.

 Gert wrote:
Does it make it easier to spew nonsense like this if you think the big bad SJW's are coming to get you? Some people just like to hobby without getting doxxed and sent death threats because they put some SoB heads on some Primaris.

It's the only way that they can make their hill defensible: act like they're the plucky underdogs fighting some kind of violent aggressive conspiracy, instead of having to come into contact with the realisation that they're actively valuing made up fictions over including real women.

It's all about narratives of morality to them, except instead of "hey, here's tangible proof that women aren't represented fairly in the hobby, can we do something practical about that?", it's "WE ALL KNOW THAT THEY'RE SECRETLY TRYING TO CONTROL EVERYTHING".
About as subtle as a brick really, but I don't suppose subtlety builds such impressive gatehouses.

 Formosa wrote:
So this all "Seems" to boil down to two ways of thinking it, a true dichotomy.

One group, the "Social justice crowd", because again lets no mince words this is exactly the people that are pushing this excuses aside.

Vs

The ones who wish the setting and background to be kept free from the politicisation of the setting for the "Activists" and prevent it from being used as yet another "platform" as other franchises have been.

Thing is if we simply just say "no" to the "Activists" in the same manner in which they keep pushing what then? they have no moral authority, we already know its not about the inclusivity, that's a front, the "Motte" so to speak, the actual aim is control of the platform in order to push whatever the flavour of the month is to the "activist", the "Bailey" that is so obvious.

Thing is, we know this, they know we know this, we know they know that we know they know this and they know we know they know this too, so why 25 pages of games and putting up a front, what ultimately is the point, this wont be agreed upon, no consensus will be achieved, the "gatekeepers" as they have been called will continue to push the "social justice" people back and the "social justice" people will continue trying to gain control of the "platform" until either they are barred or succeed.

Again this is nothing to do with "representation" or "inclusivity" "morality" "fairness" etc. we all know this, we reject that framing out of hand entirely for the falsehood it is and doubly so because it is so obvious to anyone who even slightly pays attention to these things, can we not just be honest in our intentions and if so the honest interpretation is as simple as this.

"Social justice" group: we want to control the setting and universe so we can use it as a platform for our activism as we believe that power is the ultimate form of political expression, if we do not have the power, we are duty bound to force change by any means necessary in order to gain said power.

Non "social justice group": We do not agree with the above as we do not wish the thing we like to be used as a political platform, this is because we see such things happening very often in other fandoms and franchises, we do not agree with your framing or reasons for doing so as we have experienced at length the ramifications of said actions and do not wish the same for this particular franchise, if you do not like this then please respect our wishes and leave the status quo alone.

I know these points will be ignored, I know they will be deliberately miscontsrued and mis represented by the ideologically possessed but as I said years ago on this very forum when I warned that this exact thing was coming as it did for other franchises, I would be remiss if I did not at least try.

It really isn't and doesn't.

Most of the posters pro including the female half of the in universe setting are actually being pragmatic.

The current lore could be taken as being another absurd facet of the Imperium and its pseudo scientific thinking. But that isn't an accurate representation.
I can see a real need to update the lore to include all genders in the soup of homogenized disfigured giants in power armour - That would be absolutely on point for the narrative that 40k has established.

PS the Horus Heresy can move to 'legends status'.

Cronch wrote:
Having marines be only male is already a political statement.

Yeah, I've made this point and I'm not seeing it addressed anywhere.

For all this talk of "hamfisting" and "forcing" things in the lore, are we forgetting that by default, things should be gender neutral, because... well, there's more than just men IRL? Isn't it more artificial and "hamfisting" to consciously go out of your way to say "hey, only men allowed here" - more, dare I say, political? Because exclusion is definitely more political than inclusion.

 Gert wrote:

Spoiler:

 Formosa wrote:
So this all "Seems" to boil down to two ways of thinking it, a true dichotomy.

One group, the "Social justice crowd", because again lets no mince words this is exactly the people that are pushing this excuses aside.

Vs

The ones who wish the setting and background to be kept free from the politicisation of the setting for the "Activists" and prevent it from being used as yet another "platform" as other franchises have been.

40k has always been political you've either just ignored it or don't know it's there. It makes very clear that the state humanity lives in in-universe is a horrible and pathetic existence where they have no control over their lives or freedom. The right-wing fantasy of a God-fearing fascist dictatorship is openly ridiculed in every possible way but modern 40k is absolutely missing so much of that it hurts. Only with the perspective of Guilliman and his still pretty fascist but slightly less fascist ideals has the Imperium been properly portrayed as awful.
Also, social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political, and social rights and opportunities. If there are people actively being excluded from enjoying a hobby then that is unacceptable. It's not some power trip, it's a legitimate concern that when certain groups of people get involved in the hobby they are shunned/harrassed/threatened.

Spoiler:

Thing is if we simply just say "no" to the "Activists" in the same manner in which they keep pushing what then? they have no moral authority, we already know its not about the inclusivity, that's a front, the "Motte" so to speak, the actual aim is control of the platform in order to push whatever the flavour of the month is to the "activist", the "Bailey" that is so obvious.

See above.

Spoiler:

Thing is, we know this, they know we know this, we know they know that we know they know this and they know we know they know this too, so why 25 pages of games and putting up a front, what ultimately is the point, this wont be agreed upon, no consensus will be achieved, the "gatekeepers" as they have been called will continue to push the "social justice" people back and the "social justice" people will continue trying to gain control of the "platform" until either they are barred or succeed.

If you see people wanting to make 40k more inclusive of others at the expense of 13 words of lore from roughly 20 years ago, then I am truly sorry for you. The funniest part is that you think you control 40k because you want it to stay the same forever. You never controlled it in the first place and you never will.

Spoiler:

Again this is nothing to do with "representation" or "inclusivity" "morality" "fairness" etc. we all know this, we reject that framing out of hand entirely for the falsehood it is and doubly so because it is so obvious to anyone who even slightly pays attention to these things, can we not just be honest in our intentions and if so the honest interpretation is as simple as this.

"Social justice" group: we want to control the setting and universe so we can use it as a platform for our activism as we believe that power is the ultimate form of political expression, if we do not have the power, we are duty bound to force change by any means necessary in order to gain said power.

Non "social justice group": We do not agree with the above as we do not wish the thing we like to be used as a political platform, this is because we see such things happening very often in other fandoms and franchises, we do not agree with your framing or reasons for doing so as we have experienced at length the ramifications of said actions and do not wish the same for this particular franchise, if you do not like this then please respect our wishes and leave the status quo alone.

Lmao, you make it sound like people who want female SM are going to break into your house, tie you to a chair and beat you with baseball bats because you disagree with them. Get out of here with your fake moral superiority and come back when women and minorities can enjoy the hobby without getting death threats.

Spoiler:

I know these points will be ignored, I know they will be deliberately miscontsrued and mis represented by the ideologically possessed but as I said years ago on this very forum when I warned that this exact thing was coming as it did for other franchises, I would be remiss if I did not at least try.

God, you want to be oppressed so hard, don't you?
Does it make it easier to spew nonsense like this if you think the big bad SJW's are coming to get you? Some people just like to hobby without getting doxxed and sent death threats because they put some SoB heads on some Primaris.

You just utterly proved my point Gert and didn't even realize it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cronch wrote:

The ones who wish the setting and background to be kept free from the politicisation of the setting

What part of a setting that focuses entirely on a xenophobic, totalitarian regime is apolitical to you? Having marines be only male is already a political statement.

Another one that proves my point entirely.

What exactly is the nefarious purpose of adding representation?

Like, what’s sinister about that? You seem to take it for granted that exclusively male Marines are good-why is that?

It really isn't and doesn't.

Most of the posters pro including the female half of the in universe setting are actually being pragmatic.

The current lore could be taken as being another absurd facet of the Imperium and its pseudo scientific thinking. But that isn't an accurate representation.
I can see a real need to update the lore to include all genders in the soup of homogenized disfigured giants in power armour - That would be absolutely on point for the narrative that 40k has established.

PS the Horus Heresy can move to 'legends status'

As I said before this has zero to do with representation, inclusivity, woman or any such thing, it's about control and power, I reject the false narrative and framing that it has anything to do with the representation.

I see no need to make female marines because activists have chosen this vector to try to control a increasingly popular "platform" as they see it, the answer is no, I know no amount of rationalising will matter, no appeal to lore, common sense or anything will matter because of the "by any means necessary" mentality the activist has, they simply do not care, so why should I care about their arguments in favour of change?

Control of what? Power for what purpose?

What do I gain from women Marines-other than a more inclusive and diverse hobby?

 Formosa wrote:

As I said before this has zero to do with representation, inclusivity, woman or any such thing, it's about control and power, I reject the false narrative and framing that it has anything to do with the representation.

Then kindly go and reject it somewhere else, because this thread is about representation and inclusivity.



Edit - That goes for both 'sides' of the argument here. Let's keep it on topic, folks.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What do I gain from women Marines-other than a more inclusive and diverse hobby?

Ooh, more cool heads for converting other models!

So I think the more reasonable among us can agree that lore is not a reason to exclude female representation, if only because GW doesn't respect its own lore.

Maybe if they had a long and consistent trail of lore that they didn't retcon every edition or two (usually for the benefit of Space Marines, ironically) there would be a point. But we don't and GW has demonstrated that they're more than willing to disregard their own fluff if it benefits them (usually to sell more models).

The only legitimate issue I'm seeing that people have brought up is that including females among the astartes would require GW to pour more time and energy into Space Marines who already make up half the hobby and have more than enough design space allotted to them as is. Either that or maybe they take the effort of the next primaris lieutenant and put it into a female head sprue, but we all know that's crazy talk.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Cronch wrote:
Having marines be only male is already a political statement.

Yeah, I've made this point and I'm not seeing it addressed anywhere.

Since Rogue Trader and the original Chapter Approved article were both written by Rick Priestly, I'll let him answer your question: "I don’t think any of us thought about what we doing in quite such depth at the time. Great read though and it made me smile. One aspect of characterization that I feel is often missed in Warhammer, is that many of the invented personalities and cultures have a deliberately self-deceiving quality. What they are and what they believe themselves to be are in conflict – and ultimately that gives you the idea of Troll Slayers, which is uniquely and almost definitively one of Richard Halliwell’s finest concepts. I don’t think we took ourselves all that seriously or felt the need to do so though. The 40K universe was certainly conceived in the same spirit. It always amused me that the GW Mail Order ‘Trolls’ as we (starting with me) had always styled ourselves insisted as being rebranded ‘Space Marines’. Why anyone would want to be associated with semi-lobotomized, hypnotically indoctrinated slave-soldiers in thrall to an uncaring (and possibly non-existent) god I couldn’t imagine. But times change, don’t they."

What I find odd about this discussion is that, since this is the 40k background forum, the background is dismissed as made up and irrelevent, "pulled from some author's ass". So works of fiction or art have no intrinsic value? They are not unique creations worthy of preservation?



So you have what seems to be a passing couple looking in the window, a woman at the front, with some Warcry as the main display. What exactly puts anyone off going into the shop? Nothing; well, not if they like that sort of thing, plenty of people do think warhammer is a little but gak don't they and I suppose natural disinclination would stop them from going in, but anyone who's curious? Welcome potential customer, do you need any glue??

But do you think a random person walking by, knowing nothing of warhammer, knows anything about any of the background? Doesn't seem likely, I know I didn't when I started in the hobby and having picked up the basics during intro games with a staffer, I got by with basic rules knowledge for a year or more, didn't even get into the background at all for several years. At the time, being only eight, I knew I wanted to get into the hobby but which game system? My mother wanted me to pick Warhammer Fantasy Battle because Bretonnians and fantasy in general made sense to her, I guess she just really liked the WFB 5th Edition box art? *shrug*

Why I picked 40k though, even though I really kinda wanted to pick WFB just because that's what my Mum wanted, were two specific miniatures. The Van Saar Heavy Plasma Gun (yes, the gun, not the man ) and the Ultramarines Dreadnought, that ugly, square lump was the most awesome thing I had ever seen. I collected space marines because they had Dreadnoughts and thanks to the Great Lead Sale, they were cheap, two five man combat squads saw me all the way through 2nd Edition and on into 3rd until far more important things than 40k caused me to withdraw from regular gaming. For all of that time my Mum thought space marines were robots. That took me aback and I pointed out that they had human heads (she'd even showed me how to mix paint, to paint the face of the sergeant from the 2nd Ed boxed set because I didn't have any specific flesh colours), so why would she think they were robots!? She just shrugged, "They look like robots." At least my Mum supported my interest in the hobby, and she was always good to slip me twenty quid for a box of this or that; my Dad once literally made me cry (in the GW shop no less!) because I was planning to buy Codex Chaos, (with my own saved up money) and he thought £15 was groxdung. Although after he realised what a nob he'd been he relented and he didn't put me off getting the book so, I guess it worked out in the end). My Nan was a totally different prospect though. I once brought some Tyranids with me to paint whilst spending an afternoon with her, "Why are you painting them all the same colour?" "Because they're an army" "Ohh, what a load of rubbish." And my uncle was baffled by warhammer, and my much younger cousin too, "I just don't get it." (I was playing Chaos Gate, not even the miniature game), I said, "It's a game, you try and kill the enemy, what's to get?" He just didn't understand warhammer, reckoned I'd grow out of it and one day switch to football. "But I think football's crap?" "You'll see, one day..."

Of all the people I've ever met, I would say about 10% even know warhammer exists, and of those 10% about half had collected a few minitures years before and then just forgot about it and moved on and the rest thought it was hilariously gak and didn't understand how anyone could like it.

Are women put off 40k because space marines are all male? I don't see how and the arguments set forth in this thread claiming they are seem unhinged and verging on the sort of creepy, cringey neckbeard-i-ness that is apparently rife within the community. As a woman poster on twitter put it, in response to a tweet not unlike many I've read on this thread: "Way to gatekeep. Not everyone wants to be miserable and obsessed with politics. You’re the type of person that pushed me away from this game for so long." Are there any women in this thread saying that they are put off getting into 40k because space marines are all male?

The question I ask myself is this: if female space marines are included for the purposes of adding representation for women into the space marine faction, what do women get out of it? The purpose of representation is to provide power and influence, important for anyone whom, from a lack of representation is denied agency over their own life within society. As a vulnerable adult this is very important to me, because, for people who have the same health issues as I do, most of the vociferous "advocates" are people who do not have my particular health issues, they typically have a relative who does and there is a huge amount of discussion and debate around how these advocating relatives make the issues all about them, about how it affects them, about their struggle having a relative with health issues. They never give their relative a voice though, they're just neatly snipped out of the conversation. So these advocates talk about their relatives, but not for them and they certainly dont hold them up so that there voices can be heard, they use them as a platform to raise their own voice. I want to hear from the actual people who are going through the same things as me, talking about their experiences, their struggles and the supposedly helpful relatives most often seem to be shutting them out.

So representation is important to me because a lack of it impacts directly on my life. Nowhere in 40k am I represented. How does that impact on my life, how does this lack of representation deminish me in society? It honestly doesn't. If 40k vanished tomorrow, I'd be very disappointed because it gives me a lot of enjoyment and entertainment but nothing more, maybe I'd finally have to watch the footy like my uncle said so long ago! But that's just me, maybe being represented in 40k just isn't as important to me as it is to others and to that end I look forward to hearing them speak about their experiences.

 Gogsnik wrote:
What I find odd about this discussion is that, since this is the 40k background forum, the background is dismissed as made up and irrelevent, "pulled from some author's ass". So works of fiction or art have no intrinsic value? They are not unique creations worthy of preservation?

I don't think anyone has said that the background is irrelevant (although I could be wrong, it's a long thread). What we've been saying is that the background, being made up and having been subject to change at the whims of the designers for the life of the game so far, is not inviolable.

The background of the game is important. It's what makes the game what it is. It's whether or not making this particular change would have a significant impact on the background overall that is where the disagreement is coming from.

Are there any women in this thread saying that they are put off getting into 40k because space marines are all male?

In this thread? I believe there was at least one earlier on. I've seen plenty of comments from women gamers elsewhere though wanting female marines, or sharing the misogynistic abuse they receive for creating them.

Gamers by and large are ok with regular marines, vampire marines, werewolf marines, Ghost Rider marines, magical walking armour marines, and all manner of other mutations and adaptions of the geneseed... but the moment a woman is involved, it's the end of the world.

Well, aside from the one time in one of the early Black Library novels that a woman enslaved by a Chaos Marine killed him and took his armour, becoming a champion of Khorne. Everynoe seems to have just decided to forget that happened.


That's the part that I find wierd in all of this. Even ignoring the representation argument, the 40K setting is essentially a giant melting pot of 'Everything Goes'. Orks looting Tyranids? Sure, go for it! Imperial Guard wearing Napoleonic uniforms? Great! Space Marines painted like Buzz Lightyear, or with the heads of cows? Excellent, my man!

But put a female head on a Space Marine, and people are suddenly sending you death threats.


So if you disagree that representation is important, fine. Ignore representation. Let's have female space marines as an official thing just to stop the grognards from carrying on like it's some sort of civilisation-ending sin.

So works of fiction or art have no intrinsic value? They are not unique creations worthy of preservation?

No one wants to go back and re-write all those BL books that had boys-only marines (mostly because it'd be a waste of time, 90% of BL books arent worth the paper they were printed on like all licensed media). GW already "disregarded" their old lore by introducing a brand new flavor of marines, because GW has no respect for it's "lore. To GW, it's lore is a commodity to sell, and thus primaris, or completely rewriting the necrons from almost ground up despite them having existing lore.

As for lack of fem-marines being exclusive to women, to some it is, and to almost all I ever talked to, it's a symptom of how much they're not wanted BY the community. The mere suggestion of female marines is met with incredible Old Boys Club resistance that lets them know exactly what they're getting into.

RPGs had the same issue at one time, but then 2000s happened and they grew up and now they get the most of female nerds.

Reasons given for not allowing female marines.

1. The lore. 13 words published 32 years ago. I still have the original book it was printed in, sadly not the white dwarf. I would say 70% of that book is no longer official lore. Squats, a whole army is gone. Beastmen, guard and marine jet bikes, guard using land raiders and rhinos, imperial robots as they were, eldar dreadnoughts with eldar in them, the organisation of a spacemarine army. Most articles in there aren’t in the lore today. The background is important, but it isn’t absolute.

2. Politics should be kept out of war games. Firstly, why? It’s in every aspect of our lives why not our hobbies and bad news guys, 40K is already steeped in politics. What you actually mean is politics you don’t like should be kept out of 40K. Well tough, you don’t gate keep this hobby for everyone.

3. It would mean more focus on marines and more releases for them when they are already over represented. Maybe not, it could be done very easily and slipped into future releases taking up no further sprue space. Chuck a few pronouns in some text, add a named characters. Done. By the way, there already future marine releases planned, that shouldn’t come as a shock.

4. It’s not needed, there are bigger issues in the world. No one is denying that there are bigger issues. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make small differences when we can as a society. This is an easy fix and if it makes only a small number of people feel more welcome then good and even better if it drives away or shuts up a small number of bigots in the hobby then we are doubly blessed.

5. It’s just a power grab? This one doesn’t even make sense. What power?? There is no nefarious plot just people hiding their bigotry behind conspiracy theories and fear. Anyone who knows me IRL would laugh at the idea of me being a social justice warrior or activist. I am not wanting to gain control of 40K, and quite how I’d manage that by arguing in favour of female marines on this forum I have no idea, I’d be better off buying gw shares and making a scene at the AGM. This excuse is quite frankly embarrassing. Moving on.

6. It would kill off 40K. I don’t believe this at all. I optimistically think that 40K is so full of bigotry and hatred that such a small inclusive change would destroy it. If I’m wrong then maybe it’s best that we kill it off but I really do believe the community is better than that and that 40K would carry on without losing a step.

I take solace in the fact that this thread has run 25 pages, when in the recent past one I started lasted less than a day before the hate and anger shut it down. Those of us pro female marines have had to tiptoe around language so as not to offend the naysayers but we have managed to have a reasonable debate about it. That in its self is progress and I thank the mods for allowing this. Fingers crossed GW take notice.

Using rogue trader lore as a vector to push change in current lore is not a working argument, most of the lore was solidified during the 90's not 80's, 3rd/4th was the expansion of the lore that was essentially beta tested in rogue trader.



Nope, this is a left wing point of view, the politicisation of all aspects of life, there is a barrier to real world overt political activism and rightly so, as the one trying to force the change I say to you, tough, you will not gatekeep those wishing to keep the status quo and we reach an impasse which is fair enough as it allows you to make your female marine models and allows us to keep our lore intact, compromise.



there are future releases sure, this is not a reason for change though.



Yes I actually agree with this however we disagree there is anything that needs to be fixed here, as I said to others we know this has nothing to do with inclusion and we are trying to shut the bigots up but they keep coming, we just disagree on whom the bigots are, I think its the political activists insisting that everything be political and wont just leave things be ignoring any argument or reasoning.



Yep, I have literally seen people make this exact statement on twitter and reddit, its not a conspiracy its a simple stand alone complex and an overt one, you as an individual do not represent the others that are doing just this and are overt about it, funny thing is its really easy to see if you look but as you say, moving on.



Nah this one is nonsense, it will not kill off 40k but courting the activists likely will in the long run and again, this has nothing to do with inclusivity in spite of some peoples opinion to the contrary, if that were the case we would see equal requests for all 40k, AOS, Munda etc. to have such representation, we do not, this is specific to Space marines as they are the poster child for Warhammer as a brand, hell in a deleted post I even said that I am not the arbitor of truth, I am not perfect and I may be wrong about this whole thing but I still have to express my opinion because I see and have experienced first hand what happens when the activists gain control of a space, they purge anyone and everyone that slightly disagree with them, the key difference is I am happy to disagree and move on and would not ban, kick etc. a person for such behaviour, the people I am referring to will do so at the first sign of any dissent, they are the biggest gatekeepers while decrying gatekeeping.



Here is the thing though, I agree with you here, we should be able to talk about this politely and I have been, I disagree with people politely, I keep within the rules and have not attacked anyone personally and purposefully been general so as not to single any one person out, I even ignored personal attacks to remain on topic, the only progress I am seeing though is a mod agrees with the female marine stance so is willing to overlook rule breaking things in favour of that, this is not progress, its a good example of what I have been saying and I agree, fingers crossed GW is taking notice and keeping these radical elements at arms length.

With all that being said I think this will be my last comment on this subject, I have made my point and if people want to discuss this further with me feel free to send me a PM.

Almost like nobody complains about AoS and Necromunda being bad with representation because they just flat out aren't.
AoS has more female models than 40k has ever had and Necromunda actually started off badly with representation among the gangs but the "2nd edition" as it were made sure to add headswaps/full models to nearly all the gangs to allow male or female body types, with some models being androgynous as well.
When you look at the lore for both AoS and Necromunda it gets gets better.
Stormcast have male, female and non-binary examples throughout the various media it has and Necromunda has made it pretty clear the Gangs don't care about sex or gender rather that an individual lives by the code of the Gang.
Maybe next time you'll do some research or read the rest of the thread before making unfounded comments.

Well this thread is certainly a wild ride.

One thing is has achieved though is giving me the headcannon that female Space Marines have always been possible, but that the chapters have almost universally avoided this due to some self deluding "We are battle BROTHERS, this is our bond (no girls allowed)" semi religious nonsense.

Which adds nicely to the very long list of reasons that Marines are horrible people.

 Gogsnik wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Cronch wrote:
Having marines be only male is already a political statement.

Yeah, I've made this point and I'm not seeing it addressed anywhere.

Since Rogue Trader and the original Chapter Approved article were both written by Rick Priestly, I'll let him answer your question: "I don’t think any of us thought about what we doing in quite such depth at the time. Great read though and it made me smile. One aspect of characterization that I feel is often missed in Warhammer, is that many of the invented personalities and cultures have a deliberately self-deceiving quality. What they are and what they believe themselves to be are in conflict – and ultimately that gives you the idea of Troll Slayers, which is uniquely and almost definitively one of Richard Halliwell’s finest concepts. I don’t think we took ourselves all that seriously or felt the need to do so though. The 40K universe was certainly conceived in the same spirit. It always amused me that the GW Mail Order ‘Trolls’ as we (starting with me) had always styled ourselves insisted as being rebranded ‘Space Marines’. Why anyone would want to be associated with semi-lobotomized, hypnotically indoctrinated slave-soldiers in thrall to an uncaring (and possibly non-existent) god I couldn’t imagine. But times change, don’t they."

The bolded is correct. And thankfully, we're beginning to understand that putting in a throwaway line about how women can't be part of your (to be) most iconic faction maybe isn't as a harmless and innocent as once thought.
Sure, Rick can turn around and say "well, it's not serious, and who'd want to be a Space Marine anyway", but "it was just a joke" doesn't excuse the gak women have had to deal with in the fallout, and the branding around what Space Marines are has similarly changed significantly.

As the man says, "times change", and we should be aware of that.

What I find odd about this discussion is that, since this is the 40k background forum, the background is dismissed as made up and irrelevent, "pulled from some author's ass". So works of fiction or art have no intrinsic value? They are not unique creations worthy of preservation?

As an artist myself, no, works of fiction don't have intrinsic value. Only what one ascribes to them. And frankly, why on earth would you want to preserve "only men can be Space Marines"?

GW themselves don't preserve their own lore religiously, that much is clear, and people still stick around. So why is "women can't be Space Marines" something you'd want to keep around, and why is it the hill to die on?

So you have what seems to be a passing couple looking in the window, a woman at the front, with some Warcry as the main display.

Warcry, part of AoS, which has always been more representative than 40k? Not the best example.

No-one's saying that GW is entirely anti-women - but 40k for the most part is a hell of a lot more toxic towards women than GW's other offerings.

What exactly puts anyone off going into the shop? Nothing

Other than the pervasive "boys only" culture still permeating the hobby? Yes, there's been change and progress, but that culture still exists, especially in many in-person places. I genuinely feel like you're being very dismissive of that.

; well, not if they like that sort of thing, plenty of people do think warhammer is a little but gak don't they and I suppose natural disinclination would stop them from going in, but anyone who's curious? Welcome potential customer, do you need any glue??

Natural disinclination? What does that mean?

But do you think a random person walking by, knowing nothing of warhammer, knows anything about any of the background? Doesn't seem likely

Exactly. So they'll just see how there's an endless sea of male faces in the most iconic and marketed faction (Space Marines), see no women, and won't know about the "totally valid lore reasons" about why "its about biology, see, women's bodies can't handle super soldier juice!" - they'll just see how there's no women in the flagship faction, and infer from that "huh - guess this is a boys thing" and look elsewhere - maybe into AoS.

This is what I mean about visibility. Someone walking by with no knowledge of 40k will see the flagship faction as an absolute sausage fest, and what message are they meant to take from that?

Are women put off 40k because space marines are all male? I don't see how

Maybe that's the problem here. You might not see how, but that doesn't mean that it's not true. Is it true of all women? Absolutely not, but does it exist? Yes.

and the arguments set forth in this thread claiming they are seem unhinged and verging on the sort of creepy, cringey neckbeard-i-ness that is apparently rife within the community.

How so? You say "claiming" they are - there was a link earlier in this thread to an all-women Space Marine project created by women because of this very issue. You can't say "claiming" when there's the literal proof right there.

Stop acting like this isn't a problem because you don't perceive it.

As a woman poster on twitter put it, in response to a tweet not unlike many I've read on this thread: "Way to gatekeep. Not everyone wants to be miserable and obsessed with politics. You’re the type of person that pushed me away from this game for so long."

And as many other women posting on twitter have said, they'd love some women Space Marines, and detest the boys club mentality it promotes.

I'd quote verbatim, but there's a *lot* of women calling for it. But, let's assume you didn't care about their testimony anyways - I'd still have to ask:
Why is including women "politics"? How is wanting women to be included gatekeeping? Why is wanting women to be cool super soldiers "miserable and obsessed with politics"? And most importantly, what is even wrong with including women Space Marines?

Simple questions, people.

Are there any women in this thread saying that they are put off getting into 40k because space marines are all male?

I'm not going to assume anyone's gender in this group, but I will again reference you to the Angels of Purification project as an example of women put off by the all-boys mentality.

Do with that as you will.

The question I ask myself is this: if female space marines are included for the purposes of adding representation for women into the space marine faction, what do women get out of it?

Representation? It's kinda obvious.

I flip to the counterpoint - by continuing to exclude women from Space Marines, what does anyone get out of it?

The purpose of representation is to provide power and influence, important for anyone whom, from a lack of representation is denied agency over their own life within society. As a vulnerable adult this is very important to me, because, for people who have the same health issues as I do, most of the vociferous "advocates" are people who do not have my particular health issues, they typically have a relative who does and there is a huge amount of discussion and debate around how these advocating relatives make the issues all about them, about how it affects them, about their struggle having a relative with health issues. They never give their relative a voice though, they're just neatly snipped out of the conversation. So these advocates talk about their relatives, but not for them and they certainly dont hold them up so that there voices can be heard, they use them as a platform to raise their own voice.

Right, but what are people trying to raise their voice *for* exactly? Because the only things I'm seeing here is "we want representation for women, because there's no good reason that they should be excluded in the first place, and that not featuring women in the most prominent places in the hobby sends a message that women are not valued as highly in the hobby".

I'm not hearing any women's testimonies be ignored or trampled on, unlike from everyone else who seems to imply that no women care about this issue, and I've still yet to receive any answer on as to why women Space Marines are a problem in the first place!

I want to hear from the actual people who are going through the same things as me, talking about their experiences, their struggles and the supposedly helpful relatives most often seem to be shutting them out.

Again - go look for the Angels of Purification project linked earlier in this thread.

So representation is important to me because a lack of it impacts directly on my life. Nowhere in 40k am I represented. How does that impact on my life, how does this lack of representation deminish me in society? It honestly doesn't. If 40k vanished tomorrow, I'd be very disappointed because it gives me a lot of enjoyment and entertainment but nothing more, maybe I'd finally have to watch the footy like my uncle said so long ago! But that's just me, maybe being represented in 40k just isn't as important to me as it is to others and to that end I look forward to hearing them speak about their experiences.

Yes, that is just you. And that's totally valid! If you personally don't need representation, that's great, and you're entitled to that.

But why are you using that to crush other people's requests for representation? Why does having women Space Marines affect you negatively? Why would getting rid of an outdated, exclusionary few words of lore from decades ago be a problem? Why does the idea of other people getting some representation they want put you on the defensive?

Why is "we should have women Space Marines" such a controversial statement?

 Formosa wrote:


Nah this one is nonsense, it will not kill off 40k but courting the activists likely will in the long run and again, this has nothing to do with inclusivity in spite of some peoples opinion to the contrary, if that were the case we would see equal requests for all 40k, AOS, Munda etc. to have such representation, we do not, this is specific to Space marines as they are the poster child for Warhammer as a brand, .

Right, which is why we definitely did NOT see:

-People ask for, and receive, female stormcast eternals after the initial first wave where they were all-male for no adequately explored reason

-People ask for, and receive, female imperial guard heads after they spent years and years all-male for no adequately explored reason

-People ask for, and receive, female Goliaths, female Orlocks, and male Eschers after they were initially released monogender

-People ask for, and receive, female GSC after the first wave was all-male for no adequately explored reason

-People ask for, and receive, male T'au models after they had been all-male in every helmetless sculpt since their release for no adequately explored reason

BuT wHy Do ThEy OnLy EvEr AsK fOr SpAcE mArInE rEpReSeNtAtIoN??????!?!?!one

 Formosa wrote:

Spoiler:

1. The lore. 13 words published 32 years ago. I still have the original book it was printed in, sadly not the white dwarf. I would say 70% of that book is no longer official lore. Squats, a whole army is gone. Beastmen, guard and marine jet bikes, guard using land raiders and rhinos, imperial robots as they were, eldar dreadnoughts with eldar in them, the organisation of a spacemarine army. Most articles in there aren’t in the lore today. The background is important, but it isn’t absolute.

Using rogue trader lore as a vector to push change in current lore is not a working argument, most of the lore was solidified during the 90's not 80's, 3rd/4th was the expansion of the lore that was essentially beta tested in rogue trader.

Hang on, hang on - so you're saying that old lore shouldn't be used to justify modern lore?

Why should we still be paying attention to that line about "no women Space Marines" then?

And again, "solidified" - tell that to the Necrons, Guilliman, and Primaris. Hell, tell it to the Horus Heresy. The lore has never been irrevocably "solidified", and nothing is above GW retconning it. What I have to ask is why women Space Marines is such a sacred issue.

Spoiler:

2. Politics should be kept out of war games. Firstly, why? It’s in every aspect of our lives why not our hobbies and bad news guys, 40K is already steeped in politics. What you actually mean is politics you don’t like should be kept out of 40K. Well tough, you don’t gate keep this hobby for everyone

Nope, this is a left wing point of view, the politicisation of all aspects of life, there is a barrier to real world overt political activism and rightly so, as the one trying to force the change I say to you, tough, you will not gatekeep those wishing to keep the status quo and we reach an impasse which is fair enough as it allows you to make your female marine models and allows us to keep our lore intact, compromise.

The inclusion of women isn't political though. The existence of women isn't political. The *exclusion* of them very much is.

Also, reminder that maintaining the status quo is a political opinion, not an apolitical one.

Again, I ask - why does keeping the lore intact mean more to you than women getting representation?

Spoiler:

3. It would mean more focus on marines and more releases for them when they are already over represented. Maybe not, it could be done very easily and slipped into future releases taking up no further sprue space. Chuck a few pronouns in some text, add a named characters. Done. By the way, there already future marine releases planned, that shouldn’t come as a shock.

there are future releases sure, this is not a reason for change though.

It's not a reason for change, no. The reason for change is well established as being for representation. But you seem to believe that simply changing 13 words and adding a new sprue would be grounds for a whole new revamp of the Astartes range. It doesn't. That's a problem you're inventing.

Spoiler:

4. It’s not needed, there are bigger issues in the world. No one is denying that there are bigger issues. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make small differences when we can as a society. This is an easy fix and if it makes only a small number of people feel more welcome then good and even better if it drives away or shuts up a small number of bigots in the hobby then we are doubly blessed.

Yes I actually agree with this however we disagree there is anything that needs to be fixed here, as I said to others we know this has nothing to do with inclusion and we are trying to shut the bigots up but they keep coming, we just disagree on whom the bigots are, I think its the political activists insisting that everything be political and wont just leave things be ignoring any argument or reasoning.

No, you're pretending like this is some conspiratorial grab for "power"(?), and refuse to believe how it is just as simple as inclusion and representation. You're wilfully misrepresenting and ignoring other users, making any effort communicating with you an utter waste of time.

I repeat - including women isn't political, "leaving things as they are" is not an apolitical stance, and the testimony of real people and their feelings is much more important than 30 year old lore.

Spoiler:

5. It’s just a power grab? This one doesn’t even make sense. What power?? There is no nefarious plot just people hiding their bigotry behind conspiracy theories and fear. Anyone who knows me IRL would laugh at the idea of me being a social justice warrior or activist. I am not wanting to gain control of 40K, and quite how I’d manage that by arguing in favour of female marines on this forum I have no idea, I’d be better off buying gw shares and making a scene at the AGM. This excuse is quite frankly embarrassing. Moving on.

Yep, I have literally seen people make this exact statement on twitter and reddit, its not a conspiracy its a simple stand alone complex and an overt one, you as an individual do not represent the others that are doing just this and are overt about it, funny thing is its really easy to see if you look but as you say, moving on.

Uh, no. You mean you've seen some crackpot theories, and have decided that anything you don't like is part of it.
It's really easy to see if you're inventing stuff, I suppose.

Spoiler:

6. It would kill off 40K. I don’t believe this at all. I optimistically think that 40K is so full of bigotry and hatred that such a small inclusive change would destroy it. If I’m wrong then maybe it’s best that we kill it off but I really do believe the community is better than that and that 40K would carry on without losing a step.

Nah this one is nonsense, it will not kill off 40k but courting the activists likely will in the long run

The "activists" have been here for years. I'm just sick of hearing the same excuses to oppose fair representation - excuses which I self-admittedly once gave. I've been lucky enough to self-reflect, and realise that inclusion hurts no-one, and representation will not negatively affect my enjoyment of the hobby.

These "activists" you're so afraid of? They're already here.

and again, this has nothing to do with inclusivity in spite of some peoples opinion to the contrary

Repeating your conspiracies don't make them true, I'm afraid.

if that were the case we would see equal requests for all 40k, AOS, Munda etc. to have such representation, we do not, this is specific to Space marines as they are the poster child for Warhammer as a brand

Uh, buddy, have you seen all the comments where I've been praising AoS for being more diverse? Their factions are more evenly represented, but the closest thing they have to a "poster boy" faction, the Stormcast, are gender neutral. The reason you don't hear people complaining about representation in AoS is because AoS *has* representation.

The same applies broadly to Necromunda - even the Goliaths have women members. Is it perfect, no, there's still issues with predominantly more male sculpts in Necromunda, but it's a damn sight better than 40k, hence why representation isn't a hot button issue there.

40k, and more specifically Space Marines, are brought up because 40k, and more specifically Space Marines, are GW's biggest and most visible marketing material. Necromunda is a side game, AoS is a much smaller IP, but 40k - that's the Big One. That's what Warhammer means to most people, and more specifically, Space Marines. Space Marines are the most iconic GW property, this much is obvious: and they're all men.

Yes, Space Marines are highlighted because they're the poster child, but that is because representation only matters when applied visibly. AoS and Necromunda, even if they weren't already a damn sight more diverse than 40k is, wouldn't matter as much because they're not the face of GW.

If you can't understand that representation only matters when it's visible, then no wonder this is so hard to understand for you.

hell in a deleted post I even said that I am not the arbitor of truth, I am not perfect and I may be wrong about this whole thing

You can say that again.

but I still have to express my opinion because I see and have experienced first hand what happens when the activists gain control of a space, they purge anyone and everyone that slightly disagree with them

Really? Where? When they disagree on what? What specific shade of cerulean blue you're meant to paint your Space Marines in? How long to leave a teabag in for?

Where are these purging hordes of activists? I'd love to see what places they've gained control of.

the key difference is I am happy to disagree and move on and would not ban, kick etc. a person for such behaviour, the people I am referring to will do so at the first sign of any dissent, they are the biggest gatekeepers while decrying gatekeeping.

Actively making a hobby less inclusive to women is pretty gatekeepery, if you ask me. And I don't think saying "everyone should be welcome here, so let's make the hobby itself more inclusive" is a gatekeeping statement, no?

And didn't we literally have a user in this thread saying it was okay to make hobby places toxic for women to keep them out?

Spoiler:

I take solace in the fact that this thread has run 25 pages, when in the recent past one I started lasted less than a day before the hate and anger shut it down. Those of us pro female marines have had to tiptoe around language so as not to offend the naysayers but we have managed to have a reasonable debate about it. That in its self is progress and I thank the mods for allowing this. Fingers crossed GW take notice.

Here is the thing though, I agree with you here, we should be able to talk about this politely and I have been, I disagree with people politely

Calling half the users in their thread part of a some great conspiracy and actively ignoring/misrepresenting their comments isn't polite by any stretch. Just because you've not resorted to swearing doesn't mean you've been any anywhere near civil.

fingers crossed GW is taking notice and keeping these radical elements at arms length.

Wanting women Space Marines is "radical"? Why?

people are delusional if they don't think a billion dollar company has market analysts taking a look at exactly what third-party proxy producers are making to fill in the holes in their lineup and taking actions to address the demand that isn't being filled with their products.

They have an exact figure for how much reactionary cancel culture will cost them if they do a particular thing (after the launch of AOS, they've probably got a better handle on how much a Major Nerdrage Event can cost them, as a company) and they are able to look and see that "Female (thing that GW makes that is inexplicably all-male)" is a major subcategory of third-party miniature production.

I think this boils down to conservative vs. liberal temper.

Some people would rather have 40k stay largely the same, because it's a proven and engaging concept that they are invested in. Changes, and especially, changes for extraneous reasons will not sit well with those people. "Making the hobby more inclusive" is likely not a very high priority for these people.

The opposite side likes to drive change and, ideally, towards some sort of betterment for what they perceive as a legitimate grievance. Making the hobby more inclusive will rank much higher on their list.

The two positions may be irreconcilable on certain subjects, because they are operating from wildly different premises and with different priorities.

 BertBert wrote:
I think this boils down to conservative vs. liberal temper.

Some people would rather have 40k stay largely the same, because it's a proven and engaging concept that they are invested in. Changes, and especially, changes for extraneous reasons will not sit well with those people. "Making the hobby more inclusive" is likely not a very high priority for these people.

The opposite side likes to drive change and, ideally, towards some sort of betterment for what they perceive as a legitimate grievance. Making the hobby more inclusive will rank much higher on their list.

The two positions may be irreconcilable on certain subjects, because they are operating from wildly different premises and with different priorities.

This is true, perhaps. But then I need to highlight that one side is then quite literally prioritising some made up fictional words from over 30 years ago over the feelings and representation of real human beings.
Can we call them even close to equivalent? Since when did fictional words start meaning more than treating real people fairly?

I say again - why is including women bad? Why is "no women Space Marines" so important? Why is fair representation seen as "extraneous", and is that really very fair on the people who don't fee represented?

^ What Smudge said.

...Probably because in the grand scheme of things, it is kind of meaningless. It's a discussion on a third party internet forum about a small detail in the marketing material for a miniatures game.

The lore of the game is marketing material for the game, and the game is marketing material for the actual product, the miniatures, and it's being discussed on a forum that isn't owned or frequented by even a single employee that might have control over the detail. The importance of the discussion is on essentially a quantum level.

At the end of the day, the feelings and representation of real human beings has a monetary value, and the feelings and alienation of people who have made themselves emotionally invested into this aspect of their hobby being 'only boys allowed' has a monetary value.

If monetary value A increases over monetary value B, the marketing material for the marketing material for the product will be altered and small pieces of plastic representing a different set of secondary sex characteristics and gendered adornments will be added to an upcoming miniature release that was already planned anyway. Whenever they get around to a Primaris soft-replacement for jump pack assault marines and whirlwinds and thunderfire cannons, or whatever the next thing is.

If monetary value B remains higher than monetary value A, then the little bits of plastic will safely remain representing only one set of secondary sex characteristics, and the men who invest their emotional wellbeing into the reassurance that they will not be presented with the option of assembling one of their little plastic soldiers as a little plastic woman soldier, will be reassured and comforted that that option is not available to them.

Whether you consider the feelings of the person behind monetary value B to be more or less morally valuable than the person behind monetary value A is irrelevant. The thing that matters is the dollar value behind the feelings.

If the person behind monetary value B, whose hands would begin to shake, and a single tear would roll down their cheek to hang, glistening on their quivering lip upon seeing the hated small bit of plastic representing a human being with long hair pulled back into a ponytail, with eyes too large and chin too small to be what he considers "a man" then goes on and refuses to return to the shop and spend another fifty dollars on a box of small unassembled plastic soldiers, but the people behind monetary value A walks into the shop and sees the little pieces of plastic painted to represent a person who looks like them, and then feels comfortable and like this hobby is intended for them, and spends 200$ on a starter set, then the change will be made.

but if the person behind monetary value A just doesn't go into the shop at all, or if the painted piece of plastic does not cause them to feel comfortable or convince them the hobby is intended for them after all, then the change will not be made.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This is true, perhaps. But then I need to highlight that one side is then quite literally prioritising some made up fictional words from over 30 years ago over the feelings and representation of real human beings.
Can we call them even close to equivalent? Since when did fictional words start meaning more than treating real people fairly?

Yes, I believe they are equivalent. Fictional words from 30 years ago are no less important than representation of actual people in a fictional setting. It's not "unfair" not to have female Space Marines, the same way it wouldn't be an utter IP destroying catastrophe if GW eventually decided to include them.
It's the artist's prerogative to decide what kind of people they want to depict in what context, and it doesn't carry any moral weight either way, which the term "unfair" would suggest.

In my view, it's a purely economic decision. GW is likely investigating this option and will, depending on forecasts and aggregated feeback, make a decision either way. They will be weighing up the risks vs. rewards just as with any other product and we'll find out what they have come up with down the line.


EDIT: Also agree with what scotsman wrote

 the_scotsman wrote:
...Probably because in the grand scheme of things, it is kind of meaningless. It's a discussion on a third party internet forum about a small detail in the marketing material for a miniatures game
...
but if the person behind monetary value A just doesn't go into the shop at all, or if the painted piece of plastic does not cause them to feel comfortable or convince them the hobby is intended for them after all, then the change will not be made.

Ultimately correct. The money is the ultimate arbiter for GW, whether I like that or not.

If it did so happen that adding women Space Marines was the thing to drive people away, the only question I'd have to wonder was "why"? In the face of all the other lore changes GW have made, all their other decisions and ideas and comments, it's "we added women Space Marines" that is the final straw? Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BertBert wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This is true, perhaps. But then I need to highlight that one side is then quite literally prioritising some made up fictional words from over 30 years ago over the feelings and representation of real human beings.
Can we call them even close to equivalent? Since when did fictional words start meaning more than treating real people fairly?

Yes, I believe they are equivalent. Fictional words from 30 years ago are no less important than representation of actual people in a fictional setting.

Um, what?

You genuinely believe that fictional words are even close to the same legitimacy that real people's existence have? You can't be serious? I'd also like to add that it's not just "representation in a fictional setting" - it's representation in the physical and cultural objects of that fictional setting - such as the models themselves, the media, the marketing, the *visibility*. It's not just "representation in lore", because that already exists outside of the Space Marines. What matters is "representation in the real world" - in real world objects and media, like said models, animations, novels, marketing devices, and suchlike.
And when Space Marines make up a disproportionate majority of those real world items, that's where representation needs to happen to be effective - it needs to be visible.

These are fictional words, made up decades ago to justify the sales of toy soldiers. Can you genuinely look someone in the face who says "hey, I'm feeling kinda excluded here", and tell them "well, I know you might feel excluded, but it would really hurt my feelings if someone changed these fictional rules, so I guess you'll just have to deal with it"? Because that's genuinely incredibly callous of you.

It's not "unfair" not to have female Space Marines, the same way it wouldn't be an utter IP destroying catastrophe if GW eventually decided to include them.

Why would adding women Space Marines be utterly IP destroying? Why is it women Space Marines that is this sacred touchstone that can't be altered, or else the fanboys will jump ship and leave?

And yeah, it kinda *is* unfair, because there's been no good reason put forwards why women can't be Space Marines after all this time that doesn't take a steaming gak over *actual people*.

It's the artist's prerogative to decide what kind of people they want to depict in what context, and it doesn't carry any moral weight either way, which the term "unfair" would suggest.

So if GW went ahead and *did* included women Space Marines, you think that people shouldn't complain, because the "artist's prerogative"* is of paramount importance?

*As an artist, "artist's prerogative" is not, and has never been, an acceptable excuse for bigotry. That is something that rightfully deserves free criticism.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Argive wrote:

That is a false equivalency of my point and you know it.

Don't use words you don't understand the meaning of my man, which is demonstrated thoroughly by the fact that you yourself are committing a false equivalency by comparing adding women to a made-up fantasy setting and adding them to a setting deliberately made to resemble real-life historical events.

If you can't recognize the difference between the two settings and why adding women in the latter is worse than the former than you are either being intellectually dishonest or are just something the mods at Dakka here won't let me call you.

Glad someone called that out! As arguments go, that was somewhat bad faith.

Des702 wrote:
I feel like on the opposite side of the table here there is going to be two main camps. Those who just want to keep the boys club which I hope that would be a fairly small portion of this side. And the other half would be those who are worried about how it would be implemented and how it would affect the lore. We have seen how Hollywood can royally screwed up a beloved franchise storyline with terrible representation. Star wars being a good example of that. It also doesn't help that they moved all of the existing fiction to Legends other than the main movies.

But if they implement great characters like we've seen in the past with the aliens franchise and the older Star Trek stuff (I haven't seen the new stuff so I'm not sure) I think it could be done really well. It can do justice to the lower but also bring the representation that this setting sorely needs.

Actually it seems to me that the factions are: the ones who want adapt our hobby to their ideology and the ones who are ready to accept every change that can give us a better game experience.
Why are those two faction irreconciliable?
Simply because there aren't any reasons to create the female space marines, if not the ideological ones: the female space marines would not be able to attract more female players (how many girls/women started to play Warhammer 40.000 thank to the Sisters of Battle or the Sisters of Silence?) and they would not even improve the game, because they would be totally equal to the male space marines.
This is the simple truth (at least in my humble opinion), the people (if he want) can invent another truth, more adapt to their believes, but that would be only comfortable truth, not the real one.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

Des702 wrote:
I feel like on the opposite side of the table here there is going to be two main camps. Those who just want to keep the boys club which I hope that would be a fairly small portion of this side. And the other half would be those who are worried about how it would be implemented and how it would affect the lore. We have seen how Hollywood can royally screwed up a beloved franchise storyline with terrible representation. Star wars being a good example of that. It also doesn't help that they moved all of the existing fiction to Legends other than the main movies.

But if they implement great characters like we've seen in the past with the aliens franchise and the older Star Trek stuff (I haven't seen the new stuff so I'm not sure) I think it could be done really well. It can do justice to the lower but also bring the representation that this setting sorely needs.

Actually it seems to me that the factions are: the ones who want adapt our hobby to their ideology and the ones who are ready to accept every change that can give us a better game experience.
Why are those two faction irreconciliable?
Simply because there aren't any reasons to create the female space marines, if not the ideological ones: the female space marines would not be able to attract more female players (how many girls/women started to play Warhammer 40.000 thank to the Sisters of Battle or the Sisters of Silence?) and they would not even improve the game, because they would be totally equal to the male space marines.
This is the simple truth (at least in my humble opinion), the people (if he want) can invent another truth, more adapt to their believes, but that would be only comfortable truth, not the real one.

So then why does AoS see more women players?

Moreover, while Sisters of Battle have received a decent shot in the arm, they're nowhere near the dominance in marketing and whatnot that Space Marines are. And Sisters of Silence are much less than Sisters of Battle in terms of presence.

The thing is there chief, that the game and lore are intertwined to the point where neither can exist without the other.
You can't have the game of 40k without the setting and the setting is pretty meaningless without any way to partake in it (the game). If the setting sets a precedent for people to exclude others based on race/sex/gender then the setting is bad and needs to change. This isn't just about bringing more women/non-white's/LGBT+ folks into the hobby, it's about keeping those who are already in the hobby safe from harassment and, I can't believe I have to say this again, literal death threats.

As for women starting the hobby because of female factions, I have no idea if a revamped SoB line brought more women into the hobby space and there's no real way to tell except by going on sites like Twitter and Instagram to see if there is an uptick in accounts identifying as women hobbyists. But I'll still direct you to the point I made above about harassment etc.

Once again. The hobby isn't yours, mine, or anyone else's. It belongs to GW and I'd be willing to bet not a single person on the entire Dakka website is an executive at GW who ultimately controls anything about 40k. The only thing that's "owned" by any 40k hobbyist is the models you buy.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

Des702 wrote:
I feel like on the opposite side of the table here there is going to be two main camps. Those who just want to keep the boys club which I hope that would be a fairly small portion of this side. And the other half would be those who are worried about how it would be implemented and how it would affect the lore. We have seen how Hollywood can royally screwed up a beloved franchise storyline with terrible representation. Star wars being a good example of that. It also doesn't help that they moved all of the existing fiction to Legends other than the main movies.

But if they implement great characters like we've seen in the past with the aliens franchise and the older Star Trek stuff (I haven't seen the new stuff so I'm not sure) I think it could be done really well. It can do justice to the lower but also bring the representation that this setting sorely needs.

Actually it seems to me that the factions are: the ones who want adapt our hobby to their ideology and the ones who are ready to accept every change that can give us a better game experience.

Since when was "why can't women have equal representation" an 'ideology'?

Also, it's my hobby too. You might not have intended it, but saying "our" like that is language frequently used by gatekeepers to imply that people they don't like aren't welcome, and use that language to imply a sense of ownership and legitimacy over "others". I'm sure you weren't using it in that context, but I'd refrain from doing so - because as I said - it's also my hobby as well.

Why are those two faction irreconciliable?
Simply because there aren't any reasons to create the female space marines, if not the ideological ones

... why isn't representation a reason?

And I'll refer again to a comment I made on this - you seem to be under the idea that women need a special reason to be Space Marines, when what we *should* be asking is why there's a special reason women can't be Space Marines in the first place.

the female space marines would not be able to attract more female players (how many girls/women started to play Warhammer 40.000 thank to the Sisters of Battle or the Sisters of Silence?)

Sisters of Silence are a joke of a faction and you know it, and perhaps those women are more attracted to what Space Marines offer - namely more total customisation, units, aesthetic, and brand recognition. And that's without getting into why, as I've said, simply having all-female factions doesn't mean anything if they're not equally as visible as all-male ones, or more specifically, why even have an all-male flagship faction?

As for your claims that there wasn't a significant increase of women hobbyists with Sisters of Battle, I'd like to see your sources and in-depth research on the matter.

and they would not even improve the game, because they would be totally equal to the male space marines.

Define "improve the game"? Is representation not an improvement? Why isn't it?
More importantly, what would it detract from the game at all?

This is the simple truth (at least in my humble opinion)

So, it's not really the truth then, is it?

the people (if he want) can invent another truth, more adapt to their believes, but that would be only comfortable truth, not the real one.

Alternatively, what stops me from seeing your "truth" as another invented one, purely for your comfort?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Um, what?

You genuinely believe that fictional words are even close to the same legitimacy that real people's existence have? You can't be serious? I'd also like to add that it's not just "representation in a fictional setting" - it's representation in the physical and cultural objects of that fictional setting - such as the models themselves, the media, the marketing, the *visibility*. It's not just "representation in lore", because that already exists outside of the Space Marines. What matters is "representation in the real world" - in real world objects and media, like said models, animations, novels, marketing devices, and suchlike.
And when Space Marines make up a disproportionate majority of those real world items, that's where representation needs to happen to be effective - it needs to be visible.

These are fictional words, made up decades ago to justify the sales of toy soldiers. Can you genuinely look someone in the face who says "hey, I'm feeling kinda excluded here", and tell them "well, I know you might feel excluded, but it would really hurt my feelings if someone changed these fictional rules, so I guess you'll just have to deal with it"? Because that's genuinely incredibly callous of you.

It's not "unfair" not to have female Space Marines, the same way it wouldn't be an utter IP destroying catastrophe if GW eventually decided to include them.

Why would adding women Space Marines be utterly IP destroying? Why is it women Space Marines that is this sacred touchstone that can't be altered, or else the fanboys will jump ship and leave?

And yeah, it kinda *is* unfair, because there's been no good reason put forwards why women can't be Space Marines after all this time that doesn't take a steaming gak over *actual people*.

Is it really so surprising? If anything, the past year has taught us that there's a large percentage of the population that will prioritize their own discomfort, no matter how minor, over the literal health and safety of everyone around them, including their supposed loved ones.

Which is essentially what this discussion is boiling down to. There are vocal opponents to female space marines that are vehemently against the idea because at the end of the day, it would make them uncomfortable to see women included in space marine marketing and see a few heads and pronouns associated to space marines being changed.

And every time they're called out on their excuses--from forty year old lore to how it would literally not impact any of their models--they'll double down (oh, it's not lore from forty years ago that's important, it's lore from thirty years ago that's important!) or just find some other pointless excuse to latch on to, because for the most part it's not something that's being argued against logically or even in good faith.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

Des702 wrote:
I feel like on the opposite side of the table here there is going to be two main camps. Those who just want to keep the boys club which I hope that would be a fairly small portion of this side. And the other half would be those who are worried about how it would be implemented and how it would affect the lore. We have seen how Hollywood can royally screwed up a beloved franchise storyline with terrible representation. Star wars being a good example of that. It also doesn't help that they moved all of the existing fiction to Legends other than the main movies.

But if they implement great characters like we've seen in the past with the aliens franchise and the older Star Trek stuff (I haven't seen the new stuff so I'm not sure) I think it could be done really well. It can do justice to the lower but also bring the representation that this setting sorely needs.

Actually it seems to me that the factions are: the ones who want adapt our hobby to their ideology and the ones who are ready to accept every change that can give us a better game experience..

Changes to the lore are neutral to the game experience. If GW decided, tomorrow, that the Militarum Tempestus were a male-only military order, it would change absolutely nothing about the game experience.

This statement is the equivalent of "it seems to me there are two factions on the debate of whether pineapples should go on pizza: people who think pineapples on pizza taste good, and people who hate puppies."

Does the group of people who want to adapt your hobby to their ideology want to accept every change that cant give us a better game experience? if not, how is that at all relevant to anything?

 Formosa wrote:

Spoiler:

[spoiler]2. Politics should be kept out of war games. Firstly, why? It’s in every aspect of our lives why not our hobbies and bad news guys, 40K is already steeped in politics. What you actually mean is politics you don’t like should be kept out of 40K. Well tough, you don’t gate keep this hobby for everyone

Nope, this is a left wing point of view, the politicisation of all aspects of life, there is a barrier to real world overt political activism and rightly so, as the one trying to force the change I say to you, tough, you will not gatekeep those wishing to keep the status quo and we reach an impasse which is fair enough as it allows you to make your female marine models and allows us to keep our lore intact, compromise.

You are absolutely right... the left wing has typically been the portion of the political spectrum pushing for egalitarianism. One of the most main stream right wing media personalities, Tucker Carlson, is notorious for being cited by ex-KKK members as making their arguments better than they can, and blatant misogynous comments like blaming rape victims, his recent and famous comments on military policy taking it way out of context to use sexist biases to smear the military and current administration, and such amazing quotes as "I love women but they are extremely primitive," and “If you’re talking to a feminist,” he said, “and she’s given you, ‘Well, men really need to be more sensitive,’ no, actually, men don’t need to be more sensitive. You just need to be quiet and kind of do what you’re told.” Why on earth equality amongst sexes and genders is such a political issue to the right wing I will never know.

What does this have to do with female space marines? It's a dissection on your argument that this is political theater in a forum that makes little political impact, and how you want to polarize the discussion as right vs. left, and since you insist on bringing that in I figure it would be only appropriate that we observe the political right's approach to the topic of women.

Spoiler:

6. It would kill off 40K. I don’t believe this at all. I optimistically think that 40K is so full of bigotry and hatred that such a small inclusive change would destroy it. If I’m wrong then maybe it’s best that we kill it off but I really do believe the community is better than that and that 40K would carry on without losing a step.

Nah this one is nonsense, it will not kill off 40k but courting the activists likely will in the long run and again, this has nothing to do with inclusivity in spite of some peoples opinion to the contrary, if that were the case we would see equal requests for all 40k, AOS, Munda etc. to have such representation, we do not, this is specific to Space marines as they are the poster child for Warhammer as a brand, hell in a deleted post I even said that I am not the arbitor of truth, I am not perfect and I may be wrong about this whole thing but I still have to express my opinion because I see and have experienced first hand what happens when the activists gain control of a space, they purge anyone and everyone that slightly disagree with them, the key difference is I am happy to disagree and move on and would not ban, kick etc. a person for such behaviour, the people I am referring to will do so at the first sign of any dissent, they are the biggest gatekeepers while decrying gatekeeping.

Have you not seen what happens when women try to enter 40K or what happens when they make female space marines? If death threats and constant harassment and condescending remarks like "Oh this is how your fully painted army plays" along with general creepiness is not gatekeeping, then I have no idea what is. Especially considering that at the heart of a lot of these death threats and harassments is "the lore says that space marines could never once in their lives have possessed a vagina." Maybe, we should not be giving in to a pack of donkey caves that insist that the lore that they base their justifications on for harassment and death threats, as well as having surrounded themselves with garbage that promotes implicit biases against women (if not explicit biases), rather than people advocating that this thing that is at the heart of a lot of the misogyny in the hobby should be changed?

The call for representation is of course a political one- just as the exclusion of women when creating Space Marines was a political action. Not a conscious one, but it was a product of the Zeitgeist or ideology of middle class 80s Great Britain. These nerds found white, male giants cool, because they didn't know anything else. Nothing wrong with that, but we're not in the 80's anymore and even the nerds back then didn't find that decision important enough to give it a proper explanation.

Bear with me while I fiddle with this abomination of quotes and subquotes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Um, what?

You genuinely believe that fictional words are even close to the same legitimacy that real people's existence have? You can't be serious? I'd also like to add that it's not just "representation in a fictional setting" - it's representation in the physical and cultural objects of that fictional setting - such as the models themselves, the media, the marketing, the *visibility*. It's not just "representation in lore", because that already exists outside of the Space Marines. What matters is "representation in the real world" - in real world objects and media, like said models, animations, novels, marketing devices, and suchlike.
And when Space Marines make up a disproportionate majority of those real world items, that's where representation needs to happen to be effective - it needs to be visible.

That may be your perspective, but I disagree. Nobody is entitled to being represented in fiction or a product line for that matter. Representation matters in things that govern our actual life, depictions of OUR society and world. 40k is not that, it's entirely divorced from our reality, which is what makes it so appealing in the first place. Not having female Space Marines does not invalidate the existence of women period.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

These are fictional words, made up decades ago to justify the sales of toy soldiers. Can you genuinely look someone in the face who says "hey, I'm feeling kinda excluded here", and tell them "well, I know you might feel excluded, but it would really hurt my feelings if someone changed these fictional rules, so I guess you'll just have to deal with it"? Because that's genuinely incredibly callous of you.

No, I'd probably ask them why they feel that way and try to understand the underlying issue. They I'd try to convey to them the notion that the enjoyment of any content is not contingent of yourself being represented in it. Not that I've ever met a single person who made a statement to that effect.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Why would adding women Space Marines be utterly IP destroying? Why is it women Space Marines that is this sacred touchstone that can't be altered, or else the fanboys will jump ship and leave?

I don't know, I don't have any skin in this particular game. They can make female Space Marines for all I care, but obviously there are quite a lot of people who are very much opposed to the idea, which is what that strawman was supposed to represent. If I had to take a wild guess, it's that those people have a conservative approach to the lore of 40k and fear changes that might ultimately alienate them from their hobby.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And yeah, it kinda *is* unfair, because there's been no good reason put forwards why women can't be Space Marines after all this time that doesn't take a steaming gak over *actual people*.

There are in-setting reasons for this. Men are uniquely suited to the process of creating a space marine. It's also plausible to pick exclusively male templates if you are looking to build the best super soldier. That's not particularly controversial, is it?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

So if GW went ahead and *did* included women Space Marines, you think that people shouldn't complain, because the "artist's prerogative"* is of paramount importance?

They'd be free to criticise the decision, just as much as you are free to do what you are doing right now. They'd eventually have to accept GW's decision, though.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

*As an artist, "artist's prerogative" is not, and has never been, an acceptable excuse for bigotry. That is something that rightfully deserves free criticism.

I agree, but this is not a case of bigotry, as I believe I've illustrated. The nonexistence of male Sororitas is not bigotry either, nor is Orks not having any genitalia at all. It's arbitrary parameters, chosen by the artist, that delineate the setting and give it internal consistency, none of which carry any moral weight in our actual world.

But they do carry weight-people have received literal death threats for making female Marines.

In a perfect world, it might not matter-but that ain’t the real world.

They I'd try to convey to them the notion that the enjoyment of any content is not contingent of yourself being represented in it.

Tell that to all the white men that rage online whenever they're forced to play a female character. It's amazing how their representation is important, but anyone elses' is political.

It's also plausible to pick exclusively male templates if you are looking to build the best super soldier.

Compared to even other primates, human sexual dimorphism might as well not exist. Given how extensive marine biological and cybernetic modifications are, what the baseline subject was would be completely irrelevant. It's like saying having good eyesight is important when you're using the hubble telescope.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But they do carry weight-people have received literal death threats for making female Marines.

In a perfect world, it might not matter-but that ain’t the real world.

Some people are unable to divorce fiction from reality, as both extremes in this debate have illustrated quite nicely. Doesn't mean that either of them are correct in their assertions, though.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Tell that to all the white men that rage online whenever they're forced to play a female character.

I would if they were to confront me with that kind of argument. I preferred FemShep tbh.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Compared to even other primates, human sexual dimorphism might as well not exist. Given how extensive marine biological and cybernetic modifications are, what the baseline subject was would be completely irrelevant. It's like saying having good eyesight is important when you're using the hubble telescope.

That might be the case (we can't know) and you could easily explain away all possible issues with Femarines if that's what you are going for. It's still disingenuous to suggest that there is no merit at all to the argument that men make for better soldiers on average as well as in the extremes.