Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Gert wrote:

As for your analogy, you've taken two entirely separate products and tried to equate them to a single product.
GW sells models and is trying to sell more models, by increasing representation and diversity in the model line (specifically the flagship model line) they can then sell more models to more people.
Asking if "X was Y why would this entire situation relating to X even matter?" is such a bad question.

Okay, let's take the product "Sport".

a Sport channel wants to sell people viewing rights to watch sport. Their flagship product in "American Football". American football is played by men, because of an arbitrary decision made during a time when sexism was worse. The poster boys wear bright colours, lots of armour, and are all masculine beefcakes. No women here except the cheerleaders, and that's not exactly helping. The sport itself is played by the big, masculine men in brightly coloured armour.

The channel also sells a variety of other sports, which include purely women, purely men, Mixed, and animal (greyhound racing). But the flagship product they advertise is American football.

Assuming for a moment that this channel has complete control over the sports they sell, so can make any change they want - and they want to improve representation. Is it better for them to change who their poster boys are to reflect a more balanced representation of people, or to instead add women to the American football games?


The problem with the idea of "add female marines to attract females" is that people want to represent themselves with kickass versions of not just what they are, but what they want to be. Marines are square-jawed superheroes with big guns and power armour, who do manly things like crushing their enemies in giant fists, and fire exploding ammo which blows up their enemies from machine guns. They are, for better or worse, very much marketed for the male market. Regardless of the head you put on them, they don't say "girl power".

The reason marines don't appeal to women as much as men is nothing to do with their heads, it's to do with the heads of the customers. I bet you that if they were made non-gender, just got helmets on all of them and called each other "Comrade" instead of brother, then they would remain popular for men and unpopular for women.

The issue is that what marines are is stereotypically masculine, and this is more of an issue with the stereotype than the models & lore. Just changing their heads won't change that. What marines do is all from their heads and not their hearts - stereotypically masculine - and they are soldiers who follow orders - stereotypically masculine - who's main traits are strength - stereotypically masculine - who use big guns as a solution for everything - stereotypically masculine - etc.

I am absolutely not saying the stereotype is right or justified, but it is there. And making female marines that act the same way as regular marines won't make them more appealing to women.

Marines are the flagship because they sell, and it sells because of marines. That’s simple economics, not because of GW loving them. It’s all about money. So women marines please.

some bloke wrote:Ultimately though, if the only goal is to coax women into the hobby, then surely it is simpler for GW to just give equal advertising space to all the factions and not have to worry about making new parts, additional packaging requirements (their stuff is mass produced, so adding a sprue is not just "chucking one in the box", it's routing through the factory), and then also amending the lore (again), and then making new posters anyway because they need the female marines on them.

Actually, I've been over this one. It's still easier to change Marines than it is to equal design space to all factions, because there's a lot of factions, and even the gender neutral ones are severely lacking in women representation - and as I said, representation is nothing without visibility.

And that's without still considering the cultural weight Space Marines will still continue to possess, and how women Space Marines still don't work from a faction design perspective (that design being that Space Marines are supposed to be massively customisable), and how the existence of completely arbitrary rules as to why no women are allowed contribute to the feeling of exclusion many women feel.

If you feature marines fighting against or alongside sisters of battle, guard, and all the other factions with female models, the posters will still feature marines and be recognizable, but they will also show female models.

Just changing the posters is a far simpler way to achieve this goal. And don't give me "but marines are the flagship", because they are only there because GW put them there. With decent marketing they can show off their other ranges as well.

Yeah, they're there because GW put them there - and it would be a massive market loss for them to remove them from there, considering the cultural weight Space Marines have now gained.

It's simply much more expensive (not to mention diminishing their flagship faction's influence) to re-invigorate every other faction (and still doesn't address the fundamental flaws of Space Marines being all male in the first place from an artistic level).

some bloke wrote:And it returns to the only reason being that marines are in the forefront. The only reason marines are in the forefront is because GW put marines in the forefront.

And the reason they stay in the forefront is because they sell well in the forefront.

They will continue to stay in the forefront as long as people are buying them.

Frankly, their selling power has probably gone stagnant.

Tell that to Primaris Marines, and the massive uptick in Space Marine sales/projects.

No, Space Marines are very much still the leading GW faction, and it's by a ridiculous margin.

If they put up posters with their other, more interesting/diverse/other factions then they would probably generate a lot of interest, not only from women (which I honestly don't think it would achieve anyway) but from people who aren't interested in space marines. Chuk a poster of Orks fighting Guard up (with female guard) and I bet they won't see sales drop.

But it's not just posters - its material, books, games, merch, and models - and without injecting a frankly ludicrous amount of money in, I don't think they'd hit anywhere near close to what Space Marines have, because Space Marines have such a ridiculous focus.

Contrasted with "a new sprue, change 13 words of redundant lore, and when we inevitably make new Marine stuff, chuck some women in there", and you're doing much better for cheaper - and you're fulfilling what many many hobbyists, male and female alike, have been clamouring for.

Again I ask, if it wasn't marines, would it matter? If Orks were the poster boys, or Tyranids, or Guard, or Sisters?

But the poster boys aren't Orks, Tyranids, Guard or Sisters. They're Marines.
Let's stick on topic.

"because they are the product used to advertise" is a reason to change the product used for advertising. If a company that sells power tools and makeup wants t oimprove their customer base to get more men through the doors, they would put up more posters for power tools, not try to make makeup more appealing to men.

I have no idea how this analogy is even supposed to make sense in context.

Why can't women Space Marines be "power tools"?

Grimskul wrote:It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that marines are the most popular because of the sunk-cost of GW constantly updating and adding to the range that they at this point have dedicated entire financial quarters of the year to SM releases.

Oh, agreed. And that's why, in practical terms, I don't believe that "just change who the flagship faction is is a realistic or even feasible idea, because GW have made it very clear that Space Marines are the focus.

I'd also argue that AoS or even WFB in prior years are an example of what it would be like if you don't have only a single faction pushed as the flagship. Chaos Warriors were the closest to the iconic SM design as far as their armour goes, and while they got some decent attention they definitely didn't hog releases the way SM did and they were effectively an all-male presenting army barring Valkia.

And not Stormcast? Even Stormcast aren't as heavily focused on as Space Marines are, and yet, they also have women members - to quite popular acclaim too.

Certainly you'd have more variety in terms of how females are included while also fulfilling the need for other armies to be updated, killing two birds with one stone if you increased female representation amongst existing factions while lowering the output for SM marketing and releases.

And then I still have to come back to "why are Space Marines all male in the first place", as well as highlighting how, if you want variety for how women are included in 40k, why can't they be in the faction that encourages the most variety?

some bloke wrote:Okay, let's take the product "Sport".

a Sport channel wants to sell people viewing rights to watch sport. Their flagship product in "American Football". American football is played by men, because of an arbitrary decision made during a time when sexism was worse. The poster boys wear bright colours, lots of armour, and are all masculine beefcakes. No women here except the cheerleaders, and that's not exactly helping. The sport itself is played by the big, masculine men in brightly coloured armour.

The channel also sells a variety of other sports, which include purely women, purely men, Mixed, and animal (greyhound racing). But the flagship product they advertise is American football.

Assuming for a moment that this channel has complete control over the sports they sell, so can make any change they want - and they want to improve representation. Is it better for them to change who their poster boys are to reflect a more balanced representation of people, or to instead add women to the American football games?

If there is a fundamental issue, it is that sports don't need to be single gender, or that the male sports are so much more heavily advertised and funded than the women-led ones. There definitely *should* be games of American football with women in, just like how here in the UK, we have football played by both men and women, in separate teams, but the sport itself is still mixed gender.

Your analogy, if I'm not mistaking, implies that the sports themselves are the factions, and that American football, as the whole sport itself, represents Space Marines and is only for men. I have to question why that is the case, when the broadcaster could simply also air matches done by women's American football teams - like the UK do with our football - making the sport/faction of football/Space Marines into something more representative.

Again, you act like "arbitrary decisions" can't be changed. Why not?

The problem with the idea of "add female marines to attract females" is that people want to represent themselves with kickass versions of not just what they are, but what they want to be.

And many women want to see themselves in badass power armour, with an easily customised design, with a big ass bolter that lets them do cool stuff.

Simple as that.

Marines are square-jawed superheroes with big guns and power armour, who do manly things like crushing their enemies in giant fists, and fire exploding ammo which blows up their enemies from machine guns. They are, for better or worse, very much marketed for the male market. Regardless of the head you put on them, they don't say "girl power".

If you look back in this thread, you'll see plenty of women's testimonies saying they want just that - but with women.

If you look at the Stormcast, you'll see square-jawed superheroes with big armour and big swords and big hammers, who do """""""manly""""""" things like crushing their enemies in their giant fists. And yet, they include women, and many women really like them.

So, perhaps the whole "marketed for men" is a bit of a silly argument when you consider that women still like that stuff.

The reason marines don't appeal to women as much as men is nothing to do with their heads, it's to do with the heads of the customers.

So what about the heads of the women who want women Space Marines? Are they simply not acting appropriately for their gender, so shouldn't be catered to?

I bet you that if they were made non-gender, just got helmets on all of them and called each other "Comrade" instead of brother, then they would remain popular for men and unpopular for women.

Actually, that's exactly what a lot of women have advocated for. I'd say, based on that, they'd be more popular, because it reflects a move away from male default dominance.

The issue is that what marines are is stereotypically masculine

And Stormcast aren't?

and this is more of an issue with the stereotype than the models & lore. Just changing their heads won't change that. What marines do is all from their heads and not their hearts - stereotypically masculine - and they are soldiers who follow orders - stereotypically masculine - who's main traits are strength - stereotypically masculine - who use big guns as a solution for everything - stereotypically masculine - etc.

I am absolutely not saying the stereotype is right or justified, but it is there.

And I'm saying that the stereotype also exists for Stormcast, and for Guardsmen, and for nearly all 40k factions, because war, by your own definitions of masculinity, is masculine.

And yet, women play "masculine" factions. Almost like them being "masculine" doesn't mean they shouldn't include women, or that women can't enjoy "masculine" hobbies. It's almost like women just don't want to feel excluded, and saying "well, we don't want to showcase women in this faction because it's a masculine faction for a masculine hobby and women just Don't Like That Sort Of Stuff" is exactly the kind of exclusionary stuff I'm talking about.

And making female marines that act the same way as regular marines won't make them more appealing to women.

Did you miss out all the testimonies where women, linked in this thread, have said "yeah, having women Marines would really appeal to me"?

Because it honestly sounds like you're sweeping those testimonies under the rug.

And regardless if it's one woman or one hundred saying it - why shouldn't you do it in the first place?

@somebloke
What Smudge said. Pretty much sorts out my view on this for the 100th time.

@Sgt_Smudge

I'm rather surprised seeing you defend the idea of female Space Marine (not unpleasantly surprised btw). Back in 2017, you and I had an argument on the subject of female Space Marines and you were rather opposed to the idea. And then they say people never change :p.

First point: you keep bringing up stormcast, but the models for them are clearly more than just a headswap for female models.

Anyone who is already interested in the hobby but also wants to change it to feel more included is putting up their own walls. What is to stop women from walking into GW and buying some space marines if they like them that much?

What about if someone with a phobia of insects starts saying "I like tyranids, but can they make them less bug like for me?"? The armies are what the armies are. People shouldn't expect them to be changed to pander to their preferences.

and once again I reiterate that I am for making female marines, but doing so because it would be a cool thing to do. I would prefer to see more than just a headswap.

And you saying "It's just an extra sprue", I wonder if you've any experience in mass manufacture. The production lines of GW will be set up to maximize the amount of sprues they can produce with each injection. The dies for such a machine will cost in the order of hundreds of thousands, and there will be no position to "just add" your extra head sprue. They would need to have an entire new die made, specifically to include it, which would push another sprue off the edge, reducing productivity from each injection.

Or they could just start including armies with females in their marketing drives, and in 6 months the word will be out that GW does more than just space marines, and their models aren't all male. The marketing drives would have happened anyway, so no extra costs involved. Just a different way of thinking.

epronovost wrote:@Sgt_Smudge

I'm rather surprised seeing you defend the idea of female Space Marine (not unpleasantly surprised btw). Back in 2017, you and I had an argument on the subject of female Space Marines and you were rather opposed to the idea. And then they say people never change :p.

You're absolutely right! I like to think that my sense of priorities has changed, and there's a lot of perspectives I used to hold that I've reflected on, and saw the deeply problematic elements in them.

I only hope I can do more to help more people do what I did, than what younger me did against that.

some bloke wrote:First point: you keep bringing up stormcast, but the models for them are clearly more than just a headswap for female models.

Yet they're still very much fitting all the same "masculine" hallmarks that you define as essential for Space Marines to remain all male. And again, Stormcast and Space Marines occupy very similar roles as factions - why is it okay for one to be all male, and the other not? We can clearly see that Stormcast are pretty well accepted, and, as an entirely new faction, have made quite the market impact.

Anyone who is already interested in the hobby but also wants to change it to feel more included is putting up their own walls.

On the other hand, someone who is more determined to preserve arbitrary outdated exclusionary lore than to accommodate new people in who might feel put off is someone who is putting up walls to keep others out.

What is to stop women from walking into GW and buying some space marines if they like them that much?

The underlying feeling of female exclusion and lack of representation, which I've mentioned repeatedly.

Things can look cool from a shop window, but without making steps to actually changing the reputation and representation inside the shop, can you blame people for feeling put off?

What about if someone with a phobia of insects starts saying "I like tyranids, but can they make them less bug like for me?"? The armies are what the armies are. People shouldn't expect them to be changed to pander to their preferences.

Tyranids having insect-like designs is a key element of their faction identity.

Space Marines not including women is not key to the Space Marine identity, and is an entirely hamfisted restriction, justified by arbitrary lore and nothing much else.

and once again I reiterate that I am for making female marines, but doing so because it would be a cool thing to do. I would prefer to see more than just a headswap.

What would you like to see?

And you saying "It's just an extra sprue", I wonder if you've any experience in mass manufacture. The production lines of GW will be set up to maximize the amount of sprues they can produce with each injection. The dies for such a machine will cost in the order of hundreds of thousands, and there will be no position to "just add" your extra head sprue. They would need to have an entire new die made, specifically to include it, which would push another sprue off the edge, reducing productivity from each injection.

Yes, this is true.

But if just an extra sprue doing this would cause all these problems, imagine trying to re-design every other faction instead, and the astronomical issues that would bring.

And there's clearly precedent for single sprues not causing massive issues with the production lines - just look at the Space Marine Chapter upgrade sprues.

Or they could just start including armies with females in their marketing drives, and in 6 months the word will be out that GW does more than just space marines, and their models aren't all male.

But those armies don't have women in them. In the lore, yes, but on the tabletop? Not even close.

As I said - no representation without visibility.

And, I hate to keep coming back to this, but why aren't Space Marines an army with women in from the start?

The marketing drives would have happened anyway, so no extra costs involved. Just a different way of thinking.

Except all the extra costs of needing to sculpt all the new models (because as I said, there's not even near enough women models to be slightly representative), the costs of writing new fiction, more third party media, and the sunken cost of your Space Marines who are now either still dominant, making this whole endeavour fruitless, or you've now killed your most iconic model line.

The costs involved in "dethroning Space Marines" are unfathomably more than "let's change 13 words of lore and add a new sprue".

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

If there is a fundamental issue, it is that sports don't need to be single gender, or that the male sports are so much more heavily advertised and funded than the women-led ones. There definitely *should* be games of American football with women in, just like how here in the UK, we have football played by both men and women, in separate teams, but the sport itself is still mixed gender.

Your analogy, if I'm not mistaking, implies that the sports themselves are the factions, and that American football, as the whole sport itself, represents Space Marines and is only for men. I have to question why that is the case, when the broadcaster could simply also air matches done by women's American football teams - like the UK do with our football - making the sport/faction of football/Space Marines into something more representative.

Again, you act like "arbitrary decisions" can't be changed. Why not?

Pretty sure you’re mischaracterizing his argument for a cheap shot Smudge. Come on, you’re better than this.

Sports don't need to be a single gender? Really? Mate, I'm all for female sports and support strongly out of principle, but put the ladies six nations team against the mens. No contest.

Should the channel show the women’s game? If there’s demand, absolutely. Should the game be changed to allow mixed teams? Probably not the cleverest idea – I’ve not seen mixed sports work outside of a small number of games like touch rugby, which is heavily enforced to be female friendly, and horse riding competitions, and in fairness, it’s the horse that competes here. Unfortunately though, you’ve kind of blown your own argument a bit - In terms of the 40k comparison you try to make, there is already a women’s ‘team’ that is ‘shown’.

And before anyone chimes in, I support the womens’ games. My wife used to play and we have a lot of female friends who have represented their country on a national level in various sports. They're actually pretty awesome.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The problem with the idea of "add female marines to attract females" is that people want to represent themselves with kickass versions of not just what they are, but what they want to be.

And many women want to see themselves in badass power armour, with an easily customised design, with a big ass bolter that lets them do cool stuff.

Do they?

Citation. With respect, you’re big on assertions and very light on data supporting this. Im not necessarily disputing what you’re saying, and I’m certainly not disputing the good intention behind your intentions here. But a dozen people (if that) posting here in this thread is not ‘many women’. By that metric, I should have close combat, katana wielding fire warriors too.

A kick ass version of yourself isn't necessarily the same thing as a space marine. Personally I always saw the notion of 'I need to visualise myself as the model i plop down' as a bit conceited anyway, and before you counter punch,this stems mainly from me disagreeing with people wanting to recreate themselves as their own warcaster in wmh.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

If you look back in this thread, you'll see plenty of women's testimonies saying they want just that - but with women.

If you look at the Stormcast, you'll see square-jawed superheroes with big armour and big swords and big hammers, who do """""""manly""""""" things like crushing their enemies in their giant fists. And yet, they include women, and many women really like them.

So, perhaps the whole "marketed for men" is a bit of a silly argument when you consider that women still like that stuff.

Again, a dozen people, (if that). Being critical, That’s not ‘plenty testimony’. As to stormcast, do ‘many women really like them’? Where’s your data? Stormcast, despite being pushed as the poster boys are nowhere near as popular to AOS as SMs are to 40k. I think GW are still trying to figure out what ‘sticks’ in that game and how to push it. Theyre also arguably more of a blank slate than marines. Personally, i just dont like them. until I saw the rather excellent reveals for Thunder Armour, I thought they were just poor, unappealing, misshapen and ugly lumps for the most part.

Im not against the idea that ‘marketed for men’ is a silly idea but also, there is some truth to it. Guys are more drawn to some things than women, and vice versa. Its not necessarily a ‘bad thing’ either, in principle. Claire’s Accessories, in reality, is mainly marketed at women. I think there is some merit to what Some Bloke says here. Slapping a girls head on a marines doesn’t necessarily say ‘girl power’ but I say that with a few caveats - take a redesign to the shape and look of the marines like that not-reiver that was posted earlier. But then you are going down the road of ‘sexualizing the minis’ too much. And im pretty sure the same people complaining about GW doing nothing will just start complaining about GW doing something. And you’re talking about more than a ‘new sprue’ at that point.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The reason marines don't appeal to women as much as men is nothing to do with their heads, it's to do with the heads of the customers.

So what about the heads of the women who want women Space Marines? Are they simply not acting appropriately for their gender, so shouldn't be catered to?

Oh come on Smudge. You’re better than this. You’re mischaracterising the guys arguments again for a cheap shot. Nowhere did he say, imply by inference or omission that there are girls ‘not acting appropriately for their gender’. That’s a poor, cheap shot and you do yourself a disservice my mischaracterising other peoples arguments and other peoples motives by inference like this. And with respect, its not your first time doing this – you’re too quick to see something, dismiss it out of hand because you disagree with it, and assume the person then needs to be counter punched.

There is some merit to what somebloke has to say.

We’re not talking about a small minority of folks who are already interested. We’re talking about fundamentally attracting a new audience. Like my gym friends (girls) who asked me if I could run a DND game and have never looked at 40k before. You’re targeting a new audience and honestly, I agree with him in that I don’t think a face swap is gonna do it. You need to change the community dynamics on the whole. As to catering to those already here who want it – ok, but what’s the cut off point? Should we change everything for one person? Two? Ten? A hundred? Can I have power-katana wielding fire warriors too please?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Actually, that's exactly what a lot of women have advocated for. I'd say, based on that, they'd be more popular, because it reflects a move away from male default dominance.

Have they? Data please? Being critical, A couple of blogs, half a dozen posters and one intenet project isn’t ‘a lot of women’. Though lets be clear, before you counter punch a new 'enemy', I am not dismissing or devaluing their contribution to the hobby, or their desires. Truth is in twenty years, I’ve seen some women advocate for it, but the numbers were small. I’ve seen a lot more men advocate it on behalf of women.

I’m not necessarily against the move (as I said, I loved that not-reiver) but I don’t disagree with somebloke. Slap their helmets on, call each other Comrade and I think Marines would still be vastly more attractive to men than women. Hell, if GW released a box set of ‘valkyries’ like that not-reiver, I’d buy and build a whole not-phobos company out of them for both my Raptors and my Minotaurs in a heartbeat. With respect, even the nerdiest of my girl friends won't be joining me in that endeavour.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The issue is that what marines are is stereotypically masculine

And Stormcast aren't?

and this is more of an issue with the stereotype than the models & lore. Just changing their heads won't change that. What marines do is all from their heads and not their hearts - stereotypically masculine - and they are soldiers who follow orders - stereotypically masculine - who's main traits are strength - stereotypically masculine - who use big guns as a solution for everything - stereotypically masculine - etc.

I am absolutely not saying the stereotype is right or justified, but it is there.

And I'm saying that the stereotype also exists for Stormcast, and for Guardsmen, and for nearly all 40k factions, because war, by your own definitions of masculinity, is masculine.

I disagree with you Smudge. I think Space Marines are a very one-dimensional turned up to 11 and somewhat juvenile ‘power fantasy’ view of masculinity. I don’t think its necessarily the same for Stormcast (still very much a blank slate in terms of ‘who’ they are and ‘how’ they masculate) and Guardsmen – well, we can have female friends who have signed up. That’s pretty normal these days. Personally, I think you need something else besides to achieve the objective you’re after. That objective, by the way – broader base, more diverse players etc is laudable and I support.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


And yet, women play "masculine" factions. Almost like them being "masculine" doesn't mean they shouldn't include women, or that women can't enjoy "masculine" hobbies. It's almost like women just don't want to feel excluded, and saying "well, we don't want to showcase women in this faction because it's a masculine faction for a masculine hobby and women just Don't Like That Sort Of Stuff" is exactly the kind of exclusionary stuff I'm talking about.

Youre doing that cheap shot by inference here again Smudge.

I’m happy for more women in the hobby. Absolutely. But saying ‘I don’t think this is the best way to achieve what you want’ isn’t the same thing as being exclusionary. Saying at the end of the day that ‘I don’t think this will appeal to your target audience’ isn’t being exclusionary. There are some absolutely ham-fisted and self-destructive ways of doing it badly that wouldn’t do anyone any favours.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Because it honestly sounds like you're sweeping those testimonies under the rug.

I don’t think he is sweeping anything under the rug, and With respect, you do the same - you are far too quick to dismiss other people’s points out of hand, demonise them by inference and make some cheap shots on the way. Somebloke had some decent points and they should be considered and factored into the big picture. And I’ll say that as someone who would quite happily get on board the femarine train.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


And regardless if it's one woman or one hundred saying it - why shouldn't you do it in the first place?

Thats a bit of an emotionally charged hyperbole, isn't it?

Ultimately, it depends on what they’re asking for, and what the costs are in achieving it, doesn’t it? I mean, Troy burned, ultimately because of one person.

How far do you go for one person? How far should a business go chasing one person? In reality there is a limit.

I’m all for principles, don’t get me wrong, but at the end of the day, I’m also a realist.

Yet they're still very much fitting all the same "masculine" hallmarks that you define as essential for Space Marines to remain all male.

The stormcast models, even with helmets on, would be readily identified as female by their body shape. They aren't overly sexualised like the battle-nuns, but are clearly female proportioned. This represents women far more than adding female heads to otherwise male bodies.

But those armies don't have women in them. In the lore, yes, but on the tabletop? Not even close.

As I said - no representation without visibility.

And, I hate to keep coming back to this, but why aren't Space Marines an army with women in from the start?

Like it or not, what marines are is what marines are. Adding female models for guard would be far better received within the community than retconning the space marines lore, however few words it is, just so you can have female marines.

Why guard and not marines? Because the guard represent a normal, breeding population of natural humans, who have enlisted into the army (willingly or otherwise). It makes sense, with no changes, to add female models to their range. Marines are biologically engineered super soldiers. They aren't meant to represent a natural spread of humans.

I would ask: why is it necessary to change a faction just to include females, when there are other factions which need them adding already and don't need changes to make them fit? Surely then you're risking it seeming like "only marines and sisters are representative of women!". This isn't a slippery slope argument - it's an expected result of making a change just to pander to an outspoken audience. If you add female marines because they are cool, then it's fine. If you add them just to appease the outspoken few, then the outspoken few will find something else to speak out about.

The underlying feeling of female exclusion and lack of representation, which I've mentioned repeatedly.

Things can look cool from a shop window, but without making steps to actually changing the reputation and representation inside the shop, can you blame people for feeling put off?

So now we have established that the issue isn't that women don't want to join in, it's the attitude inside the shop that puts them off. I agree. Games Workshops are renowned as being nerd-holes for men, and walking into one is a daunting prospect for a woman who doesn't know anything about the game, however cool it seems to them. Adding female heads to marines won't fix that.

What would you like to see?

I would like to first see female models represented in the armies which current lore allows for them to be a part of first. I would like to see the "Space marines, as shown by more space marines!" advertising style change to "other faction, shown here fighting space marines!". Use the marines to catch the eye, keep the images familiar, but also show off the other factions. I dislike seeing adverts for a tabletop war game showing armies just stood on their own. You need an opponent to play, so there should be both armies in the adverts.

And ultimately, once 40k includes females where it already makes sense to, I would like to see space marines expand to include female marines. I would like to see these as a combination of an upgrade kit with new bodies & heads, which will be slightly more feminine, but still in keeping with the image of space marines, similar to Stormcast. I would like to see separate kits for male and female marines, just so people don't have to spend extra for plastic they won't use.

An alternative would be to produce all of this in a single, large product wave of female parts for kits which it makes sense, and also female marines, all at once. If they could afford to do that, then all power to them!


And thanks @deathnight for backing me up a bit. I was starting to get frustrated at the same things.

Deadnight wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

If there is a fundamental issue, it is that sports don't need to be single gender, or that the male sports are so much more heavily advertised and funded than the women-led ones. There definitely *should* be games of American football with women in, just like how here in the UK, we have football played by both men and women, in separate teams, but the sport itself is still mixed gender.

Your analogy, if I'm not mistaking, implies that the sports themselves are the factions, and that American football, as the whole sport itself, represents Space Marines and is only for men. I have to question why that is the case, when the broadcaster could simply also air matches done by women's American football teams - like the UK do with our football - making the sport/faction of football/Space Marines into something more representative.

Again, you act like "arbitrary decisions" can't be changed. Why not?

Pretty sure you’re mischaracterizing his argument for a cheap shot Smudge. Come on, you’re better than this.

Sports don't need to be a single gender? Really? Mate, I'm all for female sports and support strongly out of principle, but put the ladies six nations team against the mens. No contest.

Now who's the one mischaracterising?

I said that football can be played by both men and women. I never said on the same teams.

But this only goes to serve that perhaps comparing sports and a toy soldier wargame isn't exactly a fair analogy to make in the first place.

Unfortunately though, you’ve kind of blown your own argument a bit - In terms of the 40k comparison you try to make, there is already a women’s ‘team’ that is ‘shown’.

Well, not quite. In the way that the analogy was worded and phrased, it felt rather clear that the sports themselves were supposed to reflect the factions, not the teams themselves.

The impression I was getting was that American football was only supposed to be played by men, but that other sports could have women in too. My response was that American football totally can be played by women (although in a purely practical sense, perhaps on separate teams).

And before anyone chimes in, I support the womens’ games. My wife used to play and we have a lot of female friends who have represented their country on a national level in various sports. They're actually pretty awesome.

Agreed! Women's games are every bit as exciting and intense as men's ones.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The problem with the idea of "add female marines to attract females" is that people want to represent themselves with kickass versions of not just what they are, but what they want to be.

And many women want to see themselves in badass power armour, with an easily customised design, with a big ass bolter that lets them do cool stuff.

Do they?

Yes. There's been many examples and references to women as part of the wider online 40k community, especially on Twitter, and the Angels of Purification project who cite those exact reasons.

A kick ass version of yourself isn't necessarily the same thing as a space marine. Personally I always saw the notion of 'I need to visualise myself as the model i plop down' as a bit conceited anyway, and before you counter punch,this stems mainly from me disagreeing with people wanting to recreate themselves as their own warcaster in wmh.

I'm not familiar with WMH, so I can't speak on that, but all I really have to say is "what's the issue with people wanting to make their character more resonant to them"?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If you look back in this thread, you'll see plenty of women's testimonies saying they want just that - but with women.

If you look at the Stormcast, you'll see square-jawed superheroes with big armour and big swords and big hammers, who do """""""manly""""""" things like crushing their enemies in their giant fists. And yet, they include women, and many women really like them.

So, perhaps the whole "marketed for men" is a bit of a silly argument when you consider that women still like that stuff.

Again, a dozen people, (if that). Being critical, That’s not ‘plenty testimony’.

It's the most commonly held comment coming from the women in the hobby. Even if it's only the dozen you say, if that's the majority women's opinion on the matter, is that not enough?

As to stormcast, do ‘many women really like them’? Where’s your data?

I know many women who do, but yes, I don't have empirical data. Regardless, Stormcast don't have people calling for them to be made inclusive, because they already are.

Stormcast, despite being pushed as the poster boys are nowhere near as popular to AOS as SMs are to 40k. I think GW are still trying to figure out what ‘sticks’ in that game and how to push it. Theyre also arguably more of a blank slate than marines. Personally, i just dont like them. until I saw the rather excellent reveals for Thunder Armour, I thought they were just poor, unappealing, misshapen and ugly lumps for the most part.

That's fair enough, if you don't like them, that's your preference! And yes, they're not as popular to AoS as Space Marines are, but they definitely are the closest comparison.

Im not against the idea that ‘marketed for men’ is a silly idea but also, there is some truth to it. Guys are more drawn to some things than women, and vice versa. Its not necessarily a ‘bad thing’ either, in principle. Claire’s Accessories, in reality, is mainly marketed at women. I think there is some merit to what Some Bloke says here. Slapping a girls head on a marines doesn’t necessarily say ‘girl power’ but I say that with a few caveats - take a redesign to the shape and look of the marines like that not-reiver that was posted earlier. But then you are going down the road of ‘sexualizing the minis’ too much. And im pretty sure the same people complaining about GW doing nothing will just start complaining about GW doing something. And you’re talking about more than a ‘new sprue’ at that point.

Eh, I'm personally not in love with the Reiver posted earlier - I would genuinely have just preferred the same armour as every other Space Marine. The model felt too feminine, whereas the head alone would have done what it needed.

Again, I point at the Angels of Purification project, and how they're literally just headswaps, yet noticeably not men.

I also say again that guys being more predominantly drawn to it is no excuse to outright exclusion.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The reason marines don't appeal to women as much as men is nothing to do with their heads, it's to do with the heads of the customers.

So what about the heads of the women who want women Space Marines? Are they simply not acting appropriately for their gender, so shouldn't be catered to?

Oh come on Smudge. You’re better than this. You’re mischaracterising the guys arguments again for a cheap shot. Nowhere did he say, imply by inference or omission that there are girls ‘not acting appropriately for their gender’.

All respect, but no, they very much did.

We literally have examples linked in this thread of women who don't fit by the same "heads of the customers" logic that some bloke alludes to. So what do we do with those women? Do we ignore them?

There is some merit to what somebloke has to say.

There is some, but it misses the larger picture and still acts as if the lore has a reason to be exclusionary. I've repeatedly commented over and over "why does the lore have to be the way it is", and that is nearly always glossed over.

We’re not talking about a small minority of folks who are already interested. We’re talking about fundamentally attracting a new audience. Like my gym friends (girls) who asked me if I could run a DND game and have never looked at 40k before. You’re targeting a new audience and honestly, I agree with him in that I don’t think a face swap is gonna do it. You need to change the community dynamics on the whole. As to catering to those already here who want it – ok, but what’s the cut off point? Should we change everything for one person? Two? Ten? A hundred? Can I have power-katana wielding fire warriors too please?

Agreed, you do need to change the community - and starting by making clear by changing the most prolific all-male faction to not be so all-male would go a hell of a long way in at least making clear "hey, we're reaching out here, and breaking the all-boys club mentality by getting rid of something that had no right to be as exclusive as it was".

And I've said it before for a similar argument, power-katanas aren't the same as people.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Actually, that's exactly what a lot of women have advocated for. I'd say, based on that, they'd be more popular, because it reflects a move away from male default dominance.

Have they? Data please?

The many examples given in this thread??

Being critical, A couple of blogs, half a dozen posters and one intenet project isn’t ‘a lot of women’.

I mean, it kinda is, in terms of women's influence on the hobby as a whole, and not to mention is pretty widely held amongst women in the hobby. It's definitely the prevailing option.

Though lets be clear, before you counter punch a new 'enemy', I am not dismissing or devaluing their contribution to the hobby, or their desires. Truth is in twenty years, I’ve seen some women advocate for it, but the numbers were small. I’ve seen a lot more men advocate it on behalf of women.

True, but of the women in the hobby, it's a very very small minority who don't want women Astartes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The issue is that what marines are is stereotypically masculine

And Stormcast aren't?

and this is more of an issue with the stereotype than the models & lore. Just changing their heads won't change that. What marines do is all from their heads and not their hearts - stereotypically masculine - and they are soldiers who follow orders - stereotypically masculine - who's main traits are strength - stereotypically masculine - who use big guns as a solution for everything - stereotypically masculine - etc.

I am absolutely not saying the stereotype is right or justified, but it is there.

And I'm saying that the stereotype also exists for Stormcast, and for Guardsmen, and for nearly all 40k factions, because war, by your own definitions of masculinity, is masculine.

I disagree with you Smudge. I think Space Marines are a very one-dimensional turned up to 11 and somewhat juvenile ‘power fantasy’ view of masculinity.

I have to disagree there, because Space Marines, while being emblematic of the whole "power fantasy" aspect, aren't that attached to the "masculinity" aspect. Their armour, as evidenced by the Angels of Purification project, can just as easily be worn by women presenting models without a weird whiplash effect of an evidently male body. Their core identity is much more tied up in their individual Chapter cultures, not as the "masculine" part.

I don’t think its necessarily the same for Stormcast (still very much a blank slate in terms of ‘who’ they are and ‘how’ they masculate) and Guardsmen – well, we can have female friends who have signed up. That’s pretty normal these days.

Yes, women absolutely can and do sign up for military service. I'm not denying that. But I am saying that, from the whole "it's a masculine thing, so we shouldn't have women in it" logic presented, no faction in 40k should have women, because by some bloke linking war to masculinity, every faction should be masculine coded.

And I think I disagree on the Stormcast - both Space Marines and Stormcast are incredibly blank slate-y factions, with a whole range of options that they've been encouraged to explore - yet, Space Marines still have one avenue they can't go down.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


And yet, women play "masculine" factions. Almost like them being "masculine" doesn't mean they shouldn't include women, or that women can't enjoy "masculine" hobbies. It's almost like women just don't want to feel excluded, and saying "well, we don't want to showcase women in this faction because it's a masculine faction for a masculine hobby and women just Don't Like That Sort Of Stuff" is exactly the kind of exclusionary stuff I'm talking about.

Youre doing that cheap shot by inference here again Smudge.

I’m happy for more women in the hobby. Absolutely. But saying ‘I don’t think this is the best way to achieve what you want’ isn’t the same thing as being exclusionary. Saying at the end of the day that ‘I don’t think this will appeal to your target audience’ isn’t being exclusionary. There are some absolutely ham-fisted and self-destructive ways of doing it badly that wouldn’t do anyone any favours.

At the same time, I still have to ask "what's so bad about getting rid of lore that has absolutely no right to be there"? Because honestly, a lot of this feels like that - that the lore is to be protected at all costs, and that people would go to any lengths to see anything else done other than to change that.

Even with alternatives perhaps to achieving my goals, why again do Space Marines need to be male in the first place?

I don’t think he is sweeping anything under the rug, and With respect, you do the same - you are far too quick to dismiss other people’s points out of hand and make cheap shots on the way.

I'm not sure about that - many people have linked in testimonies from women hobbyists, and I very rarely, if ever, see those testimonies brought up or even considered by the people arguing against them. We get a lot of "but do women actually want this", and the answer is invariably "yes, women want this". And no, obviously that's not *all* women, but enough that it's not a fluke.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


And regardless if it's one woman or one hundred saying it - why shouldn't you do it in the first place?

Depends on what they’re asking for, and what the costs are in achieving it, doesn’t it? I mean, Troy burned, ultimately because of one person.

In which case, in this situation:
Asking for women Space Marines, something that had no real reason not to exist in the first place, and overturning a long held point of exclusion.
Costs? For GW, minimal - a new head sprue, and a web document/piece of lore. In future inevitable publications, featuring women Space Marines.

It's not that much to ask, yes?

I’m all for principles, don’t get me wrong, but at the end of the day, I’m also a realist.

Agreed, I'm a realist too - and I think the realist option here for increasing women's representation is to represent them in the faction that's already highly visible, and wouldn't take much to make representative.

some bloke wrote:

Yet they're still very much fitting all the same "masculine" hallmarks that you define as essential for Space Marines to remain all male.

The stormcast models, even with helmets on, would be readily identified as female by their body shape. They aren't overly sexualised like the battle-nuns, but are clearly female proportioned. This represents women far more than adding female heads to otherwise male bodies.

And I point to the Angels of Purification project, where perfectly "normal" Space Marines become identifiably women by a headswap. Again, I'm not sure I quite agree with "female proportioned" when we're talking about Space Marines who aren't exactly human proportioned in the first place.

But those armies don't have women in them. In the lore, yes, but on the tabletop? Not even close.

As I said - no representation without visibility.

And, I hate to keep coming back to this, but why aren't Space Marines an army with women in from the start?

Like it or not, what marines are is what marines are.

And what Marines are right now is a faction defined by their customisation and player freedoms - not because they're all men.

And no, sorry, but I don't agree with the whole "it is what it is" principle, because that shuts down anything. That argument can very well be turned around onto "why can't other factions be the flagship", or "hey, can we have more non-caucasian Marines".

Adding female models for guard would be far better received within the community than retconning the space marines lore, however few words it is, just so you can have female marines.

Evidence?
Again, I'd look at that, and see that GW were still clinging to something that really has no reason to exist, and would rather do anything else other than hit the whole representation issue where it matters - visibly.

Why guard and not marines? Because the guard represent a normal, breeding population of natural humans, who have enlisted into the army (willingly or otherwise). It makes sense, with no changes, to add female models to their range. Marines are biologically engineered super soldiers. They aren't meant to represent a natural spread of humans.

I have no idea why that means they should exclude women though. If you don't want Space Marines to represent a natural spread of humans, let's have them only include blondes. Or people with one eye. Or people without facial hair. Or maybe all with really long hair. Or any other arbitrary division you can create.

Why was "no women" the breaking point?

I would ask: why is it necessary to change a faction just to include females, when there are other factions which need them adding already and don't need changes to make them fit?

Because those other factions aren't the flagship faction, and Space Marines being all male isn't integral to their identity in the first place. It's an arbitrary limitation which only stifles player creativity, which is the main attraction of Space Marines to many people.

Surely then you're risking it seeming like "only marines and sisters are representative of women!".

No, it's "Space Marines are the flagship faction, and if GW/fans are breaking their banks to avoid changing a piece of completely arbitrary lore, what does that say about their thoughts on representation."

Look at it this way - the lengths that people have gone to in this thread to do anything other than change 13 words, instead of just saying "hey, yeah, you know what, maybe you do feel excluded and this might help" tells me that perhaps people don't really care so much about representation as they might purport to.

If you add them just to appease the outspoken few, then the outspoken few will find something else to speak out about.

Will they? Why?

The underlying feeling of female exclusion and lack of representation, which I've mentioned repeatedly.

Things can look cool from a shop window, but without making steps to actually changing the reputation and representation inside the shop, can you blame people for feeling put off?

So now we have established that the issue isn't that women don't want to join in, it's the attitude inside the shop that puts them off. I agree. Games Workshops are renowned as being nerd-holes for men, and walking into one is a daunting prospect for a woman who doesn't know anything about the game, however cool it seems to them. Adding female heads to marines won't fix that.

Alone? No, it won't. I've made no pretence that it would fix it all the way. No single change would, except the community itself being more proactive in getting rid of problematic people and attitudes.
But making women more visible, in the most visible faction, and actively making a step forward against their own lore that had no reason to be exclusive - that's gonna make an impression.

I would like to first see female models represented in the armies which current lore allows for them to be a part of first.

Why is the lore the guiding factor in this?

And ultimately, once 40k includes females where it already makes sense to, I would like to see space marines expand to include female marines.

It already makes sense to include women now. The only reason they can't is because of 13 words of lore that are completely arbitrary in their restriction.

I would like to see separate kits for male and female marines, just so people don't have to spend extra for plastic they won't use.

In my example of the upgrade sprue heads, if you didn't want women Space Marines, you wouldn't *need* to pay for bits you didn't use.

Cycle of this thread for summary:

Female Space Marines will break the LORE > The Lore is only 13 words from over 20 years ago and GW has said they don't acknowledge it > We shouldn't cater to minority opinions in a hobby game > Fine, then leave > I will, but GW will never make any money off of this > Female integration has led to AoS doing amazingly well > Where are the Female orks or the Male SoB > There is no gender in Orks, and there are several male models already in the SoB > But why are we changing the lore of space marines only > Because they are the flagship faction with the most representation > But if we change their lore then I will not play them > Do you currently play them > No I play Drukari > Then what is your problem > If we change the lore it will ruin the game.......

Why is the lore the guiding factor in this?

Because the lore makes the factions what they are. They are nothing but cool looking models without the rich stories in the background. This is the legacy that GW has built up over so many years. There are other companies making cool models, which are far better quality than GW and more affordable, but they don't get a fraction of the traffic as GW products do because the lore behind 40k is as important, if not moreso, than the models and the rules themselves.

If you have two options of armies to change to make more inclusive, one of which has a lore reason for being all male and the other is just because those are the models they made, then the logical one to change first is the one which already should have female models.

We all agree that guard should have female models - they should. We also agree on whether space marines, without changing the lore, can have female models - they can't. those 13 words that you're so keen on bringing up prevent it.

So why should Space Marines come first? If I saw marines having female models and the other factions who should have them not having them, I would consider it a bad form of representation. Akin to the sports analogy, if the sports channel had all male sports exclusively, then added women's american football just because american football is popular, even if there are other sports which women are actually more interested in.

Your entire argument hinges on the idea that space marines are the flagship, and should make it seem like an inclusive hobby. If GW added female models to the armies which already need them (we have established that 13 words of space marine lore, until they are changed, means marines don't need them), and then advertising these armies, will be a better way to make the hobby more representative without making it seem like a token gesture.

some bloke wrote:

Why is the lore the guiding factor in this?

Because the lore makes the factions what they are.

All of it? To the point where none of it can ever be changed?

Space Marines are not defined by being all men right now, their factional design has moved past it, and not even just that, but why is "because it's lore" an excuse for blatantly exclusionary material?

If the lore said "only pure Aryan stock"* can be Space Marines, is that acceptable?


*and I'm only using this as an example of blatantly exclusionary material.

They are nothing but cool looking models without the rich stories in the background. This is the legacy that GW has built up over so many years. There are other companies making cool models, which are far better quality than GW and more affordable, but they don't get a fraction of the traffic as GW products do because the lore behind 40k is as important, if not moreso, than the models and the rules themselves.

Is "woman can't be Space Marines" such an integral part of the design of Warhammer 40k as a whole?

I'm not saying lore's not important. I'm saying that it's completely arbitrary, and more specifically, I'm referring to tthis piece in particular.

If you have two options of armies to change to make more inclusive, one of which has a lore reason for being all male and the other is just because those are the models they made, then the logical one to change first is the one which already should have female models.

No, the logical thing to do is to consider why the lore is exclusive in the first place, considering that it's all made up in the first place.

We all agree that guard should have female models - they should. We also agree on whether space marines, without changing the lore, can have female models - they can't. those 13 words that you're so keen on bringing up prevent it.

No, we don't agree on it, because those 13 words are completely arbitrary.

It's like saying "we can all agree that the Ultramarines have a half-Eldar chief Astropath" because there's lore that says so - except there's additional context around that which makes it less clear. In the case of the astropath, it's that GW quietly abandoned it. In the case of the lack of women Astartes, it's that it makes no sense to exist in the first place.

So why should Space Marines come first? If I saw marines having female models and the other factions who should have them not having them, I would consider it a bad form of representation. Akin to the sports analogy, if the sports channel had all male sports exclusively, then added women's american football just because american football is popular, even if there are other sports which women are actually more interested in.

And that's exactly my point: why can't women play American football in the first place? That's the question I'm asking.

Your entire argument hinges on the idea that space marines are the flagship, and should make it seem like an inclusive hobby.

And that Space Marines have no reason to be all male in the first place, but yes.

If GW added female models to the armies which already need them (we have established that 13 words of space marine lore, until they are changed, means marines don't need them)

And I would say that Space Marines need them too - because there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed them in the first place.

and then advertising these armies, will be a better way to make the hobby more representative without making it seem like a token gesture.

I'd say that adding women everywhere without actually addressing the most pervasive element of the "all boys" culture would be more tokenistic.

"Hey look, we've added those women you wanted! Well, not *everywhere*, we're not that concerned about representation! But look, you've got women, where we've said you can have them! Isn't that what you wanted?"

The sheer number of times inviolate lore has been broken in 40k, but this is the one thing you cling to as if it's the Shroud of Turin. I don't recall a 40 page thread about how GMan and his Xenotech revival are ruining 40k. Or Custodes Marching to War, or the face that FEMALE SPACE MARINES ACTUALLY EXIST.

 some bloke wrote:
First point: you keep bringing up stormcast, but the models for them are clearly more than just a headswap for female models.

Yeah, because fluff matters here. If they made female custodes, each one is singularly designed - the female ones would probably have 'specially crafted armor' that looked different from the male custodes.

Theyre not going to design a power armor mark for female astartes, particularly when the power armor worn by astartes is clearly way, way bigger than their body.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:


So why should Space Marines come first? .

They, uh, didn't.

A whole new sisters line, female tau, female gsc, new banshees, a female inquisitor like in that one video game everyone liked, female guard... they all came first.

If the lore said "only pure Aryan stock"* can be Space Marines, is that acceptable?

Well, if it had decent reasons for it. If the lore said "Space marines are all clones of one specific dude who was found to be the only person who the process worked for, so they all look the same", then this is a valid reason for them to look like that.

No, we don't agree on it, because those 13 words are completely arbitrary.

Regardless of whether or not there are reasons or justifications behind the choice, you have repeatedly called for these 13 words to be changed to allow female space marines. As such, until those words are changed, the lore prevents them from having them.

And that's exactly my point: why can't women play American football in the first place? That's the question I'm asking.

But in this analogy, your approach, you are redirecting any funds/effort to introduce female models to lines which already should have them, just so that one specific faction can be changed so that they should have their female models first.

Sisters of battle are an existing representation of women in 40k. The lore describes women in the imperial guard. Both of these should be a higher priority to push and build on than putting them on a sideline so space marines can come first.

Furthermore, just doing a headswap doesn't change enough to be of any impact on your desired cause.

Let's take an entirely masculine movie - Predator - and apply the same logic.

You say you want to make the movie appeal to women more by increasing their representation. To do this, instead of writing in female characters, with their own feminine aspects, you just cut arnies head off and replace it with a woman's head. The movie plays exactly the same, but with a woman's head on Arnie. Does Arnie, bare chestedly blasting his way through the rainforest, represent women now?

We have already discussed that the entire appearance of space marines - wearing helmets so their heads are irrelevant - is very masculine. Tacking a womans head onto a masculine army and saying "now it will appeal wo women" is exactly like superimposing a womans head onto Arnie in Predator to try and achieve the same thing. It lands somewhere between "Confusing" and "Insulting".

 some bloke wrote:


You say you want to make the movie appeal to women more by increasing their representation. To do this, instead of writing in female characters, with their own feminine aspects, you just cut arnies head off and replace it with a woman's head. The movie plays exactly the same, but with a woman's head on Arnie. Does Arnie, bare chestedly blasting his way through the rainforest, represent women now?

We have already discussed that the entire appearance of space marines - wearing helmets so their heads are irrelevant - is very masculine. Tacking a womans head onto a masculine army and saying "now it will appeal wo women" is exactly like superimposing a womans head onto Arnie in Predator to try and achieve the same thing. It lands somewhere between "Confusing" and "Insulting".

Certainly, there was never a pair of extremely famous 80s action-horror films involving aliens hunting humans that got extremely famous for first writing the role of their protagonist gender neutral and casting a woman in the role, and then for including a butch implied-lesbian in the second film who was described as manly by other characters.

You're totally right though, Vasquez would have been vastly better representation if that damn sexist director hadn't refused to have her wear a flak jacket with sculpted tiddies and make her heavy machine gun pink!

 the_scotsman wrote:

 some bloke wrote:


You say you want to make the movie appeal to women more by increasing their representation. To do this, instead of writing in female characters, with their own feminine aspects, you just cut arnies head off and replace it with a woman's head. The movie plays exactly the same, but with a woman's head on Arnie. Does Arnie, bare chestedly blasting his way through the rainforest, represent women now?

We have already discussed that the entire appearance of space marines - wearing helmets so their heads are irrelevant - is very masculine. Tacking a womans head onto a masculine army and saying "now it will appeal wo women" is exactly like superimposing a womans head onto Arnie in Predator to try and achieve the same thing. It lands somewhere between "Confusing" and "Insulting".

Certainly, there was never a pair of extremely famous 80s action-horror films involving aliens hunting humans that got extremely famous for first writing the role of their protagonist gender neutral and casting a woman in the role, and then for including a butch implied-lesbian in the second film who was described as manly by other characters.

You're totally right though, Vasquez would have been vastly better representation if that damn sexist director hadn't refused to have her wear a flak jacket with sculpted tiddies and make her heavy machine gun pink!

Quite right. There are other films available, with female characters, in exactly the same way as there are other factions available, which have lore-based groundings for female characters and could have female models added without any rewriting.

But we're talking about Predator, because Predator is the film with all men in it. We should change the fact that they are all men, because they are only all men because someone decided that once in an arbitrary decision. But to change it, we won't add a female character, we'll just edit Arnie to look like a woman.

Same deal with just head swapping marines.


What if Ripley was played by a man edited with a woman's head? Because that's the equivalent of just putting a womans head on a space marine. Would that still be representing women? Or is the fact that Ripley is a woman the reason she represented women?

 some bloke wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 some bloke wrote:


You say you want to make the movie appeal to women more by increasing their representation. To do this, instead of writing in female characters, with their own feminine aspects, you just cut arnies head off and replace it with a woman's head. The movie plays exactly the same, but with a woman's head on Arnie. Does Arnie, bare chestedly blasting his way through the rainforest, represent women now?

We have already discussed that the entire appearance of space marines - wearing helmets so their heads are irrelevant - is very masculine. Tacking a womans head onto a masculine army and saying "now it will appeal wo women" is exactly like superimposing a womans head onto Arnie in Predator to try and achieve the same thing. It lands somewhere between "Confusing" and "Insulting".

Certainly, there was never a pair of extremely famous 80s action-horror films involving aliens hunting humans that got extremely famous for first writing the role of their protagonist gender neutral and casting a woman in the role, and then for including a butch implied-lesbian in the second film who was described as manly by other characters.

You're totally right though, Vasquez would have been vastly better representation if that damn sexist director hadn't refused to have her wear a flak jacket with sculpted tiddies and make her heavy machine gun pink!

Quite right. There are other films available, with female characters, in exactly the same way as there are other factions available, which have lore-based groundings for female characters and could have female models added without any rewriting.

But we're talking about Predator, because Predator is the film with all men in it. We should change the fact that they are all men, because they are only all men because someone decided that once in an arbitrary decision. But to change it, we won't add a female character, we'll just edit Arnie to look like a woman.

Same deal with just head swapping marines.


What if Ripley was played by a man edited with a woman's head? Because that's the equivalent of just putting a womans head on a space marine. Would that still be representing women? Or is the fact that Ripley is a woman the reason she represented women?

Predator was not a movie with all men in it, but, regardless.

Did ya catch that Game of Thrones show? Do you consider Brienne of Tarth to be "a woman's head on a man's body" because she wore a big ol' suit of armor?

Because space marines wear big ol' suits of armor. I'm not sure if you've noticed here. Lots of spare room in power armor, big space.

Sorry, I'd much rather have female marines that look like Kyria Draxus than Saint Celestine.

Can we please stop with all the "Whataboutism" it's vacuous and completely pedantic. Yes, we can sit here and shout examples at each other for the next ten pages, or we can discuss honestly, without putting words in each other's mouths.

"So are you saying..." is a bad argument and needs to be stopped. Ask your question, don't frame it in a negative tone, just ask your question/make your point. It's called poisoning the well, and it's a fallacy.


To bring us back full circle:
Why do women being space marines, which is already a canonical thing, suddenly hurt your personal experience of the hobby, if it hasn't in the past?

some bloke wrote:

If the lore said "only pure Aryan stock"* can be Space Marines, is that acceptable?

Well, if it had decent reasons for it. If the lore said "Space marines are all clones of one specific dude who was found to be the only person who the process worked for, so they all look the same", then this is a valid reason for them to look like that.

Nah, let's go with "they can only be Aryan stock because the Magic Space Juice only works on people with blue eyes and blond hair".

That's "decent", right?

Or, like my creation of that stupid bit of lore, it's entirely arbitrary, entirely unnecessary, and frankly just creates more problems for players than it fixes any.

No, we don't agree on it, because those 13 words are completely arbitrary.

Regardless of whether or not there are reasons or justifications behind the choice, you have repeatedly called for these 13 words to be changed to allow female space marines. As such, until those words are changed, the lore prevents them from having them.

And the lore is all made up, and had no actual power.

The lore doesn't prevent it. People unwilling to critically reflect on the lore prevents it.

And that's exactly my point: why can't women play American football in the first place? That's the question I'm asking.

But in this analogy, your approach, you are redirecting any funds/effort to introduce female models to lines which already should have them, just so that one specific faction can be changed so that they should have their female models first.

You keep saying about these lines that "should" have them - why "shouldn't" Space Marines? Because of the arbitrary lore that can be changed whenever GW want, like they did with Necrons, and Primaris, and Guilliman, and - oh, getting rid of women Space Marines!

Sisters of battle are an existing representation of women in 40k.

But a representation that paints women into a single box - nuns with guns. Sisters are cool, but they only come in one flavour. Space Marines come in multiple.

The lore describes women in the imperial guard.

It does. It also describes the Imperial Guard as incredibly varied in design and culture (which the Guards models ain't, but which Space Marines are), and are probably one of the weakest factions in setting.

How does it reflect on GW that the faction they seek to promote women's representation is are the disposable cannon fodder faction, instead of the cool flagship Space Marines?

Both of these should be a higher priority to push and build on than putting them on a sideline so space marines can come first.

It's not about putting Space Marines first. It's about understanding that Space Marines *are* first, in the real world, not because of an arbitrary lore reason, and that if you're going to make noticeable change in representation, it needs to start with the most visible parts first.

Furthermore, just doing a headswap doesn't change enough to be of any impact on your desired cause.

Why not? And lest I remind you, it's not just a headswap - it's tacit endorsement that women can be Space Marines. That alone, paired with representative material, makes a hell of a larger step than "we've added on the bare minimum of what we've arbitrarily let you have".

Let's take an entirely masculine movie - Predator - and apply the same logic.

You say you want to make the movie appeal to women more by increasing their representation. To do this, instead of writing in female characters, with their own feminine aspects, you just cut arnies head off and replace it with a woman's head. The movie plays exactly the same, but with a woman's head on Arnie. Does Arnie, bare chestedly blasting his way through the rainforest, represent women now?

Strange. I don't recall Space Marine armour being so tight fitting or naked that you can see their bare chests.
Arnie is very much masculine, because they play up his masculinity. That's why the Predator is so much more terrifying - because they build up Arnie as this big masculine tough guy, and then strip that all away in the face of the Predator. There's an actual reason in the film why he should be male.
What reason exists for Space Marines not to be women? A made up lore reason? Aesthetically, their armour is so thick it's essentially genderless - a helmeted Space Marine could easily be a woman, if women were allowed in the made-up lore. And from a faction design perspective, any kind of allegory for monks or knights falls apart when you consider how broad the cultural diversity between Chapters is.

Perhaps look at it like Brienne of Tarth - can you tell she's a woman under all that armour? Catelyn Stark couldn't.

We have already discussed that the entire appearance of space marines - wearing helmets so their heads are irrelevant - is very masculine.

But they're not, not really. Their armour is so thick and bulky, it's barely human. We don't see rippling biceps, abs, or freakishly oversized codpieces. We see thick armour plating, one that would easily hold both male and female bodies in it.

Tacking a womans head onto a masculine army and saying "now it will appeal wo women" is exactly like superimposing a womans head onto Arnie in Predator to try and achieve the same thing.

Except Arnie is very clearly a man, no armour to hide behind, and him being a man serves a purpose within the narrative of the film.

Ain't the same for Space Marines.

It lands somewhere between "Confusing" and "Insulting".

I would say the same about the adherence to lore in the face of real people having issues with the exclusion it causes.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Did ya catch that Game of Thrones show? Do you consider Brienne of Tarth to be "a woman's head on a man's body" because she wore a big ol' suit of armor?

Because space marines wear big ol' suits of armor. I'm not sure if you've noticed here. Lots of spare room in power armor, big space.

Sorry, I'd much rather have female marines that look like Kyria Draxus than Saint Celestine.

Very much agreed. Space Marine armour doesn't need changing to have women in it, it's big and bulky enough as it is.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why do women being space marines, which is already a canonical thing, suddenly hurt your personal experience of the hobby, if it hasn't in the past?

Lets not mix up what is what here, woman being space marines, is not already a canonical thing.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Did ya catch that Game of Thrones show? Do you consider Brienne of Tarth to be "a woman's head on a man's body" because she wore a big ol' suit of armor?

Because space marines wear big ol' suits of armor. I'm not sure if you've noticed here. Lots of spare room in power armor, big space.

Sorry, I'd much rather have female marines that look like Kyria Draxus than Saint Celestine.

Firstly, no, I've not seen the series but I have read the books. Brienne is pretty much described as a woman's head on a mans body. She's not just a woman in big armour. She's a very masculine woman who fills her armour, and she pushes the stereotypes that only men can be knights. One of the main aspects of her is that if she wore her helmet, you couldn't tell she was a woman by looking.

Kyria Draxus is definitely a better representation than St Celestine, but I would still say that Kyria's sculpt is such that if she wore a helmet, you would feel that she is a woman. She's not a male model with a woman's head.

Again, I'm 100% behind changing the lore and introducing female space marines. I think it would be cool to see. But if it's done by just adding a head sprue, that's like saying "We made a kit for an Ork thunderfire cannon!" and then it being a thunderfire cannon kit with an ork head for the techmarine.


Yes, introduce female marines, but no, don't do it half-arsedly.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we please stop with all the "Whataboutism" it's vacuous and completely pedantic. Yes, we can sit here and shout examples at each other for the next ten pages, or we can discuss honestly, without putting words in each other's mouths.

"So are you saying..." is a bad argument and needs to be stopped. Ask your question, don't frame it in a negative tone, just ask your question/make your point. It's called poisoning the well, and it's a fallacy.


To bring us back full circle:
Why do women being space marines, which is already a canonical thing, suddenly hurt your personal experience of the hobby, if it hasn't in the past?

I didnt say "so you are saying" in an attempt to poison the well. I brought up multiple examples of women in popular media who do not wear "special woman armor for their woman parts" and tried to get the example being discussed to something a tad more....understandable and realistic, than photoshopping a woman's head on someone else's body.

The reason I'd prefer they represent female space marines with headswaps is it would mean it wouldn't be necessary to, for example, release YET ANOTHER new space marine troop box if you wanted to have female space marine models. You wouldnt necessarily even need to release new space marine kits you werent already going to - just put some female heads into the new boxes that were already going to come out in the next wave of the eternal primaris marine rollout.

 LumenPraebeo wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why do women being space marines, which is already a canonical thing, suddenly hurt your personal experience of the hobby, if it hasn't in the past?

Lets not mix up what is what here, woman being space marines, is not already a canonical thing.

Female Space Marines are already an existing model. Which means they were part of the canon. You cannot say squats are no longer part of the canon simply because you can't buy them anymore. They existed, but were never written out of the lore.

some bloke wrote:Firstly, no, I've not seen the series but I have read the books. Brienne is pretty much described as a woman's head on a mans body. She's not just a woman in big armour. She's a very masculine woman who fills her armour, and she pushes the stereotypes that only men can be knights. One of the main aspects of her is that if she wore her helmet, you couldn't tell she was a woman by looking.

But she is still a woman. Women don't need to be feminine. I don't think the women asking for women Space Marines are after feminine armour either, because you don't need feminine armour to be a woman.

Kyria Draxus is definitely a better representation than St Celestine, but I would still say that Kyria's sculpt is such that if she wore a helmet, you would feel that she is a woman. She's not a male model with a woman's head.

And yet, I can look at the Angels of Purification models, and I can see that they aren't men, even though all it is is a headswap, because Space Marine power armour isn't that emblematically male, it's just really goddamn thick.

Again, I'm 100% behind changing the lore and introducing female space marines. I think it would be cool to see. But if it's done by just adding a head sprue, that's like saying "We made a kit for an Ork thunderfire cannon!" and then it being a thunderfire cannon kit with an ork head for the techmarine.

Big difference there, most notably being that an Ork's body (and whole armour design) is much different from a Space Marine's. But a woman's body isn't all that different, especially when you consider the whole "superhuman" and "massive power armour" elements.

That's a pretty poor comparison.

Yes, introduce female marines models, but no, don't do it half-arsedly.

Fixed that to models, and then you see why I want women Space Marines.

the_scotsman wrote:The reason I'd prefer they represent female space marines with headswaps is it would mean it wouldn't be necessary to, for example, release YET ANOTHER new space marine troop box if you wanted to have female space marine models. You wouldnt necessarily even need to release new space marine kits you werent already going to - just put some female heads into the new boxes that were already going to come out in the next wave of the eternal primaris marine rollout.

Exactly the same here.

I don't want new Space Marine kits. I do, funny as it sounds, want to get other factions to get updated kits. But there exists no reason to leave Space Marines languishing and continuing to poison the efforts of representation elsewhere.
Giving Guard some (much-needed) representation won't change that it's fundamentally broken that Space Marines don't have any either.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Female Space Marines are already an existing model. Which means they were part of the canon. You cannot say squats are no longer part of the canon simply because you can't buy them anymore. They existed, but were never written out of the lore.

Thats news to me. Since when?

Giving Guard some (much-needed) representation won't change that it's fundamentally broken that Space Marines don't have any either.

I don't think that it's fundamentally broken that a faction who (regardless of how many words and how arbitrary the decision was) has a story reason for being all male contains models which are all male.


As it is, we have several factions which have females in the lore - Tau, Guard, etc. - who don't have female models. We also have several armies which have their reasons (however arbitrary and brief) for being all masculine - Orks, Marines - and then the monsters. It's not like the game has female representation everywhere and now we need to expand that into the factions which can be changed to make it work.

Fixed that to models, and then you see why I want women Space Marines.

Oh don't get me wrong - I see why you want women space marines. And I think that it is the wrong reason for wanting it. I think that if anything is done to a creative medium (and 40k is very much a creative medium) then it should be done to improve things, not to appease people. Adding women space marines would be cool. That's reason enough to do it. But doing it because women might be upset at the lack of female space marines is the wrong reason to do it.

I acknowledge that sometimes you have to say "no" to doing things just to please other people. If someone suggested rewriting the ork lore to fit female orks into the game, I would be opposed entirely - Orks are just muscle-bound monsters in 40k, they don't have genders and their identity is somewhat tied to their appearance. It wouldn't add anything to add female orks. Adding female marines would add to the game, I think. But again, not for the reasons that you're suggesting, and not in such a half-arsed manner as you're suggesting.

LumenPraebeo wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Female Space Marines are already an existing model. Which means they were part of the canon. You cannot say squats are no longer part of the canon simply because you can't buy them anymore. They existed, but were never written out of the lore.

Thats news to me. Since when?

They're pretty awful sculpts, but they existed (much to the pain of my eyes).

some bloke wrote:

Giving Guard some (much-needed) representation won't change that it's fundamentally broken that Space Marines don't have any either.

I don't think that it's fundamentally broken that a faction who (regardless of how many words and how arbitrary the decision was) has a story reason for being all male contains models which are all male.

Sorry, but that's not a very critically reflective response.

You're well aware how flimsy the justification for them being all women is - so why do you stand by it? Why is that so important?

It's barely a story reason, any more so than my "it doesn't work on anyone who isn't Aryan" excuse was - entirely hamfisted, pointless, and needlessly exclusive.

As it is, we have several factions which have females in the lore - Tau, Guard, etc. - who don't have female models. We also have several armies which have their reasons (however arbitrary and brief) for being all masculine - Orks, Marines - and then the monsters. It's not like the game has female representation everywhere and now we need to expand that into the factions which can be changed to make it work.

I know the game doesn't have women's representation everywhere - which leads to the logical response of "well why isn't it in certain places"?

Orks? Inhuman, so male probably isn't even correct. But masculine? Yes, from a place of criticising and satirising that "lads lads lads" culture.
Custodes? Arbitrary, but they actually use the all-male concept, so from a design perspective, it can pass.
Space Marines? Arbitrary, opposes their concept of being a blank slate, and needlessly exclusive.

Ergo, Space Marines don't need to be one of those "all male" factions in the first place.

I see why you want women space marines. And I think that it is the wrong reason for wanting it. I think that if anything is done to a creative medium (and 40k is very much a creative medium) then it should be done to improve things, not to appease people.

You act like having better representation isn't an improvement. Am I reading incorrectly into that?

If someone suggested rewriting the ork lore to fit female orks into the game, I would be opposed entirely - Orks are just muscle-bound monsters in 40k, they don't have genders and their identity is somewhat tied to their appearance.

And I would agree - because Orks don't have genders, and their existence as masculine-presenting is an actual satire/commentary of "lads lads lads" culture, and it's very hard to argue that it's not. There's not really any ambiguity there, nor is there really a largely notable demand for Ork women.

The thing in, the same can't be said of Space Marines, which is why I don't see why women can't be Space Marines.

Adding female marines would add to the game, I think. But again, not for the reasons that you're suggesting, and not in such a half-arsed manner as you're suggesting.

On the counterpoint, I think that adding women everywhere except the Space Marines, without tackling one of the most lasting and prolific examples of needless "boys only" mentality (as you suggest, for an entirely arbitrary reason), is a half-assed measure, because you're not actually dealing with the most problematic element, you're just sidestepping it.

But, at the very least, I am glad that you'd support their inclusion.

Ergo, Space Marines don't need to be one of those "all male" factions in the first place.

I agree. But I also think that having factions which have no reason whatsoever, however arbitrary, to not have female models represented with entirely male models is a bigger issue.

The issues are, regardless of how arbitrary and brief the justifications are:

Imperial Guard don't have female models, and they currently have no reason not to. This is an issue with representation, as we have all male models representing an army which should be mixed.
T'au have no female models, and they currently have no reason not to. This is an issue with representation, as we have all male models representing an army which should be mixed.
Space marines have no female models, but they have story reasoning why. This is not an issue with representation, as we have all male models representing an army which should be all male models.

You might not like the reasoning why. You might think it is too small a thing to matter about changing. But frankly, there are other races which already need female models, who should be dealt with first.

I put to you that Warhammer 40k needs more female models. And that Space Marines are not the best place to start with that, as they have an (albeit flimsy) piece of lore which makes them all male.