Switch Theme:

Heresy of the worst kind  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Utilizing Careful Highlighting




U.k

Is anyone still clinging to the fluff being a reason not to change to allowing female marines? Even after it’s been shown to be a line of text printed 4 times over 30 years and isn’t in any of the current lore and hasn’t been printed for 4 years.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





Andykp wrote:
Is anyone still clinging to the fluff being a reason not to change to allowing female marines? Even after it’s been shown to be a line of text printed 4 times over 30 years and isn’t in any of the current lore and hasn’t been printed for 4 years.


So we've now had the goalposts shifted around between "It is old lore from 20 years ago, it's non-canon now as it's not been seen since" and "it's not said often so its not important" and "it was re-printed 4 years ago, it's still not current" and "It's just fluff so they should just get rid of it"?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/19 12:17:26


 
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought





 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Is anyone still clinging to the fluff being a reason not to change to allowing female marines? Even after it’s been shown to be a line of text printed 4 times over 30 years and isn’t in any of the current lore and hasn’t been printed for 4 years.


So we've now had the goalposts shifted around between "It is old lore from 20 years ago, it's non-canon now as it's not been seen since" and "it's not said often so its not important" and "it was re-printed 4 years ago, it's still not current" and "It's just fluff so they should just get rid of it"?
I don't think the goalposts have shifted at all from "this lore isn't considered relevant by GW because they haven't emphasised it's importance in the faction's design for decades", which has been my stance.

The points here are that:
1. Space Marines being inspired by monks isn't accurate any more (even if we step away from your stereotypical monk, that opens up the possibility of female monks) in a factional design sense

2. The piece of lore that dictates why Space Marines can't be women is barely referenced by GW, and certainly not treated with the same weight that is afforded to the Sisters of Battle (evidenced by its lack of appearance in Codexes, unlike the explanation given to Sisters of Battle)

3. The lore that dictates why Space Marines can't be women is entirely arbitrary, and has no logical reason to exist

4. Space Marines are now defined by their freedom and customisation, which the restriction on gender only stands in the face of the current design philosophy

And that's just on why the lore has no right to be what it is, let alone why the lore is even a valid excuse in the first place.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/19 12:25:56




They/them

 
   
Made in fr
Stalwart Tribune





Being a monk means dedicating one's life to a religious or spiritual purpose. It means living some sort of ascetic lifestyle to not get distracted by "earthly matters." It doesn't even mean living as a community; the monastic orders are more well known, but some monks were hermits and sometimes went to impressive lengths to isolate themselves.

Space marines really aren't monks. Their purpose is to fight, not to achieve enlightenment. If you want to compare them to something real, look at crusades-era militant orders like the Knights Templar or Knights Hospitaller. They took vows and lived somewhat like monks, but their "job" was to protect pilgrims and holy sites. They were knights, not monks.
   
Made in no
Huge Bone Giant





Bergen

42 pages of people arguing if female plastic heads should be included on a SM spruce.

I am a dyslectic, so bear with me.

Dyslectics in a text based environment? Dakka is aware of you and sympathises with any troubles you have: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/505863.page

Kronos biovore box fresh sporemines. Denying psykick powers since 2017.

 
   
Made in gb
Utilizing Careful Highlighting




U.k

 Niiai wrote:
42 pages of people arguing if female plastic heads should be included on a SM spruce.


Sadly yes.
   
Made in it
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





Sesto San Giovanni, Italy

I already found the reference you mention. And thanks so I have it on English too (my Index Astartes is translated).

I'll reiterate: there is no reason why female space marine are not possible. The "lore" mention male tissues and hormones as limit. Unfortunately the only (very weak) explanation that could have had some consistency would have been the Y chromosome (even there twenty pages ago we made a reference of man with XX and female with XY so, even this don't make sense)... But the genetic of the candidate is really an afterthought for a Marine candidates: genetic material is provided by progenoids and bedded in the new organs: indoctrination, willpower, chemical treatment and determination are much more important in the process.

But even ignoring that, guess what? "Male" tissue and "male" hormones do not exist. All hormones and tissue are present in both male and women, their balance is what change (yeah, exactly what the initiation process alter radically).

And not, you can't call some bs like "in the 40k the distinction is real". Biology in 40k is the same we have, expect for those thing that do not exist (yet). The simplest and more consistent interpretation to save every interpretation (that should be a priority: a setting subservant of its fans, not the opposite) is that the Imperium is simply ignorant, they always had the option for female marine but never realize that.
Primaris are also possibly female, and with a very short story arc we only need to show how the Imperium realizes that (and even more important how do they manage to tell this to their own extremely close-minded population).

No retcon, no changes to the lore, people can legitimately have their Marine female both as Firstborns and Primaris without having to suffer some idiot that pretend to determine how other should play with their toys... and a much more coherent and consistent background, both towards the past grimdark (damn: the Imperium really don't even know how their own Marine works) and also to the current more enlightening fluff (Guilliman is a pragmatic, and this is a pragmatic decision, nothing more).

If instead you're sure that the lore of a monastic order is really important to Marine, let me point you towards the Shaolin. Don't you think the Shaolin warrior order is a perfectly fine representation of Marine lifestyle and philosophy?
Guess what? Female Shaolin are accepted there since... Well, since forever really, they've never been excluded in the first place.

I really don't get how people can behave masochistically and avoid a clear win-win.

Last, but not least, you should be careful when you approach a "lore" with acritical thinking: if you do, you're not allowed to build any hypothetical or any conclusion from the lore itself.
Lore and narrative is an incomplete description by definition... It's a basic concept of text interpretation: one of it's more evident example is the war wound of Doctor Watson on Doyle's Sherlock Holmes.
You can either use the lore, or you can only care about what is explicitly stated (so, I suppose we should have lost you at Centurions, right?). You can't do both at your choice, because then everything you says is without meaning.

I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it. 
   
Made in gb
Utilizing Careful Highlighting




U.k

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Is anyone still clinging to the fluff being a reason not to change to allowing female marines? Even after it’s been shown to be a line of text printed 4 times over 30 years and isn’t in any of the current lore and hasn’t been printed for 4 years.


So we've now had the goalposts shifted around between "It is old lore from 20 years ago, it's non-canon now as it's not been seen since" and "it's not said often so its not important" and "it was re-printed 4 years ago, it's still not current" and "It's just fluff so they should just get rid of it"?


The lore or fluff as I call it, it’s all the same, has never been a reason to maintain the status quo. That is not moving as a goal post. I will spell it out one more time as to why; the lore always changes and always has, nothing in inviolate. Marines have changed and evolved, the emperor has the whole setting has. The actual bit of fluff that people who don’t want female marines cling to so desperately was 13 words first printed in 1989. In the last few pages we have taken a look at how current that is and if it is still “canon” (another word I hate using because it relies on a non dictionary definition so is ambiguous).

We have all found that the same 13 words were reprinted, pretty much exact reprint of the 1989 article in 2002. Then again in 2017. And once online with disclaimer saying much of the “lore” or fluff has changed. That’s it. No goal posts moved at all. We are looking at how relevant and how vital to the setting this line of text is. It is not currently in print in any of the background or rules books published as far as anyone can tell and hasn’t featured in any of the codexs or rule books ever. It has only appeared in white dwarf, collections of white dwarf articles and once on warhammer community.

Now the goal posts are exactly where they always were, the goal is, is this line of text a good reason not to change the rules and allow female marines? I say categorically, NO. if it was such a vital faction defining piece of information it would be in their codex or at least in print somewhere, anywhere. It isn’t and has never been in their codex. 8 editions of codex and it has been omitted every time. Further more if you were a new person to the game then you would have no idea from the current line of books available that women could not be made into space marines.

Goal posts exactly where they were. If you think something published 4 times in 32 years and neve in a core text, when they have had every opportunity to have it published in every edition and every spacemarine background bit of info, is so vital to the faction that to change would destroy their identity then I would say to you that you are wrong. There’s my evidence against the fluff/lore argument. Prove me wrong. Show me how these 13 words of text matter so much to the identity of spacemarines as a faction.

PS. I am an old git. When I started playing lore was called fluff. So I call it that. I’ve used lore more in this thread because people get upset when I call it fluff. The two terms to me are entirely interchangeable. Don’t read anymore into it than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Cybtroll wrote:
I already found the reference you mention. And thanks so I have it on English too (my Index Astartes is translated).

I'll reiterate: there is no reason why female space marine are not possible. The "lore" mention male tissues and hormones as limit. Unfortunately the only (very weak) explanation that could have had some consistency would have been the Y chromosome (even there twenty pages ago we made a reference of man with XX and female with XY so, even this don't make sense)... But the genetic of the candidate is really an afterthought for a Marine candidates: genetic material is provided by progenoids and bedded in the new organs: indoctrination, willpower, chemical treatment and determination are much more important in the process.

But even ignoring that, guess what? "Male" tissue and "male" hormones do not exist. All hormones and tissue are present in both male and women, their balance is what change (yeah, exactly what the initiation process alter radically).

And not, you can't call some bs like "in the 40k the distinction is real". Biology in 40k is the same we have, expect for those thing that do not exist (yet). The simplest and more consistent interpretation to save every interpretation (that should be a priority: a setting subservant of its fans, not the opposite) is that the Imperium is simply ignorant, they always had the option for female marine but never realize that.
Primaris are also possibly female, and with a very short story arc we only need to show how the Imperium realizes that (and even more important how do they manage to tell this to their own extremely close-minded population).

No retcon, no changes to the lore, people can legitimately have their Marine female both as Firstborns and Primaris without having to suffer some idiot that pretend to determine how other should play with their toys... and a much more coherent and consistent background, both towards the past grimdark (damn: the Imperium really don't even know how their own Marine works) and also to the current more enlightening fluff (Guilliman is a pragmatic, and this is a pragmatic decision, nothing more).

If instead you're sure that the lore of a monastic order is really important to Marine, let me point you towards the Shaolin. Don't you think the Shaolin warrior order is a perfectly fine representation of Marine lifestyle and philosophy?
Guess what? Female Shaolin are accepted there since... Well, since forever really, they've never been excluded in the first place.

I really don't get how people can behave masochistically and avoid a clear win-win.

Last, but not least, you should be careful when you approach a "lore" with acritical thinking: if you do, you're not allowed to build any hypothetical or any conclusion from the lore itself.
Lore and narrative is an incomplete description by definition... It's a basic concept of text interpretation: one of it's more evident example is the war wound of Doctor Watson on Doyle's Sherlock Holmes.
You can either use the lore, or you can only care about what is explicitly stated (so, I suppose we should have lost you at Centurions, right?). You can't do both at your choice, because then everything you says is without meaning.


And this^^^^. (Exalted btw).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/19 14:24:28


 
   
Made in it
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





Sesto San Giovanni, Italy

I have another example to illustrate why the lore take at face value irks me (because I think that many don't get it, without any necessary malice attached).

How would you react if the selection process of a Space Marine would be based on astrology?
Like, only a Gemini can become a White Scar, while only a Sagittarius can become a Dark Angel? And let me be clear: I don not intend "in the faulty Apothecary ideas" (that would be fine and consistent with the lore).

I mean in a really limiting and pseudo-scientific way, like "only those born under the Gemini have the biochemistry needed for the implants". Zodiac sign applied to people of other world that don't even have the same sky.

Won't it drastically degrade the lore of Marines? I think it will: lore need to be internally consistent and have a verisimilitude.
I see the current lore explanation for female marine exactly in the exact same way: a problem the cheapens the lore and damage the setting overall for no gain at all.

I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it. 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Andykp wrote:
PS. I am an old git. When I started playing lore was called fluff. So I call it that. I’ve used lore more in this thread because people get upset when I call it fluff. The two terms to me are entirely interchangeable. Don’t read anymore into it than that.


Being also an early adopter of 40k (Hardback RT, and photocopied chits stuck onto cereal box cardboard Battle for the Farm early - I actually made one of those deodorant stick and zoid parts tanks early - *Rippyfish* early ) I find "fluff" a bit dismissive and "lore" kinda pretentious. Background has served me well down the years

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/19 19:44:43


 
   
Made in gb
Utilizing Careful Highlighting




U.k

Catulle wrote:
Andykp wrote:
PS. I am an old git. When I started playing lore was called fluff. So I call it that. I’ve used lore more in this thread because people get upset when I call it fluff. The two terms to me are entirely interchangeable. Don’t read anymore into it than that.


Being also an early adopter of 40k (Hardback RT, and photocopied chits stuck onto cereal box cardboard Battle for the Farm early - I actually made one of those deodorant stick and zip parts tanks early - *Rippyfish* early ) I find "fluff" a bit dismissive and "lore" kinda pretentious. Background has served me well down the years.



I can work with that. Love battle of the farm. Replayed it in 8th edition rules with the same numbers of models. It was over very quick. Games much more Killy now.
   
Made in us
Revving Ravenwing Biker




New York City

 Niiai wrote:
42 pages of people arguing if female plastic heads should be included on a SM spruce.


I've always been a huge fan of the mantra: "You do you." Just do whatever you want with your army, and if someones gives you for it, well 'em.

It would be very considerate and nice for GW to provide you options in their boxes though.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/20 15:24:41


Fight for our dead! Death to their living! And claim them in the name of the Emperor!
Lego Warhammer 40,000. Someone make it happen. 
   
Made in gb
Utilizing Careful Highlighting




U.k

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
 Niiai wrote:
42 pages of people arguing if female plastic heads should be included on a SM spruce.


I've always been a huge fan of the mantra: "You do you." Just do whatever you want with your army, and if someones gives you for it, well 'em.

It would be very considerate and nice for GW to provide you options in their boxes though.


Until they do we will just keep doing us I guess. Have female marines in my army but would be nice not to be given grief for it.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Is anyone still clinging to the fluff being a reason not to change to allowing female marines? Even after it’s been shown to be a line of text printed 4 times over 30 years and isn’t in any of the current lore and hasn’t been printed for 4 years.


So we've now had the goalposts shifted around between "It is old lore from 20 years ago, it's non-canon now as it's not been seen since" and "it's not said often so its not important" and "it was re-printed 4 years ago, it's still not current" and "It's just fluff so they should just get rid of it"?


No we have not.

Want to try a different lie to reframe things?
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





Catulle wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Is anyone still clinging to the fluff being a reason not to change to allowing female marines? Even after it’s been shown to be a line of text printed 4 times over 30 years and isn’t in any of the current lore and hasn’t been printed for 4 years.


So we've now had the goalposts shifted around between "It is old lore from 20 years ago, it's non-canon now as it's not been seen since" and "it's not said often so its not important" and "it was re-printed 4 years ago, it's still not current" and "It's just fluff so they should just get rid of it"?


No we have not.

Want to try a different lie to reframe things?


Just what are you accusing of being a "lie"? Something analogous to all of those things have been said over the past few pages.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/20 23:59:46


 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Sorry, I had a weekend with the family, and I missed about 2 pages it seems. After 48 hours, any new arguments or just the same?
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





GW is less respectful of its fluff than most posters here are it seems.
There were never sanguinary guard - until GW invented them
orks grew in marsupial pouches - until GW decided dirt foetus was better than green vaginas
There were never space marine fighter jets - until GW decided to invent them
The c'tan enslaved the necrons and used them as a force to harvest the galaxy - until GW decided that the necrons actually overthrew them
Marines were T3 and 4+ sv - until GW decided they shouldn't be
All imperials were exectuted on seeing chaos - until GW decided to dial it back
Hover sleds pulled by wolves never existed - until GW decided Grimnar should have one



The list is endless until you get to the one most closely related to this conversation:

Marines had a set number of organs and physiological features along with the same holy equipment for 10,000 years - until GW decided their geneseed could be changed and the imperium could invent whole new swathes of weapons.


It really doesn't matter how justified people arguing in favor of male only marines feel they are - GW changes the lore to suit their business model constantly. If they believe that female heads on the marine sprue will boost their sales, then they will appear. And it will all be very briefly explained with 'Cawl's discovery of a genetic switch that his new organs can turn off to allow for women's bodies to accept the geneseed' or something similar.


The only sacred cow in 40k that you could use to defend your position - the inviolability of the emperor's holy geneseed - has been clearly and definitively killed by GW. They violated it with all the glee of a company for whom fluff is not a sacred text, but a commodity to be exploited and mined for new ways to increase profit.





This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/21 02:52:15


 
   
Made in gb
Utilizing Careful Highlighting




U.k

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Sorry, I had a weekend with the family, and I missed about 2 pages it seems. After 48 hours, any new arguments or just the same?


Same old stuff. Being accused of moving the goal posts on what counts as current, because we decided to look in to when the men only but was last published. I think the accusation comes from the fact it was ages ago and isn’t in print now and barely ever has been so the “ lore” is even less defensible now.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Sorry, I had a weekend with the family, and I missed about 2 pages it seems. After 48 hours, any new arguments or just the same?


I've just caught up on about 8 pages and honestly the last 2-3 have gotten much more caught up on whether space marines are "warrior monks" or not, which seems somewhat unrelated to the topic at hand!


As for the rest of it, there was a reasonable point that women might object to being told that they have changed the game just so that they can play - reinforcing the idea that all-male models actually means women are excluded and that adding female heads is further reinforcing this as truth rather than debunking it and throwing off the idea that the gender of your small plastic models matters at all. This will do doubt be rebuffed by someone saying that women want it.

The lore has been looked over with a fine tooth comb and it has become clear that the whole "it can't work on women" thing is so antiquated that it's only hanging on by the slimmest of fingertips, and that only because they have ignored it rather than adding the words "it can work on boys and girls". So the lore is basically open, and the only thing keeping it male is the pronouns they use.

Smudge came up with an excellent suggestion to roll them in with the primaris changes, with a great lore-reason for doubling recruits. A much better reason to do it than "so women can play".


Honestly, I think with the last 2 pages of people arguing about if marines are monks, the lore reasons for keeping it all male having basically vanished and me feeling appeased that we can write it in with some sensitivity and not just make it "token women so women can play too", most people seem to be in agreement at this point!

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought





Hellebore wrote:GW is less respectful of its fluff than most posters here are it seems.
Pretty much. Lore can be changed. Lore *is* changed. Using lore to defend why something should be kept doesn't work if you can't defend why the lore exists in the first place.

some bloke wrote:I've just caught up on about 8 pages and honestly the last 2-3 have gotten much more caught up on whether space marines are "warrior monks" or not, which seems somewhat unrelated to the topic at hand!
I believe the monk stuff is due to some users claiming that Space Marines don't have women because they're meant to be evocative of warrior monks, which apparently means that they'd all be men.
The problem with this is that Space Marines aren't very evocative of monks any more, at least, certainly not your stereotypical monk, and if we're throwing in atypical monks, then many of them can be women.

It's not a particularly solid point.


As for the rest of it, there was a reasonable point that women might object to being told that they have changed the game just so that they can play - reinforcing the idea that all-male models actually means women are excluded and that adding female heads is further reinforcing this as truth rather than debunking it and throwing off the idea that the gender of your small plastic models matters at all.
No-one said it was "just so they can play".

What was said was "to break the all-boys mentality" which is very much pervasive in the hobby.

Small anecdote, relevant to this, actually, but an anecdote no less: catching up with some friends last night, and one brings up how a lot of people they know play Warhammer (referring to 40k), and that they don't really know what's going on, but they smile and nod anyways. The one thing she *did* say she noticed? "Where's the women?"

Even amongst non-players, the all-boys image is very strong - and while I showed them my own Sisters of Battle project, it didn't change that they weren't even aware of Sisters, but were very much aware of all the rest.
My point? The most iconic 40k factions are predominantly male, and this creates a "male only" impression to observers. That's not a good look.

As for "reinforcing that the gender of your models matters at all" - no, the people making sure that stays reinforced are the ones crying and screaming when someone puts a woman's head on a Space Marine. And while I'm aware that people in this thread have said "but I wouldn't do that!!", that doesn't really mean anything when other people do.
This will do doubt be rebuffed by someone saying that women want it.
Uh, yeah. Because they do?

I'm not sure if it's just a text thing, but it really does sound like you're erasing or underplaying that aspect, and I'm not sure why. If a sizable portion of the women hobbyist community are saying "hey, we'd like this", I'm not sure why we should be listening to people saying "but I don't think that women *really* want that"?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 10:23:40




They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Uh, yeah. Because they do?

I'm not sure if it's just a text thing, but it really does sound like you're erasing or underplaying that aspect, and I'm not sure why. If a sizable portion of the women hobbyist community are saying "hey, we'd like this", I'm not sure why we should be listening to people saying "but I don't think that women *really* want that"?


I am taking it as anecdotal at best, thus far I've only seen vague references to it. I've not seen evidence of "a sizeable portion of the women hobbyist community" requesting it.

"I know some women who want this" is as valid as when we were saying "the lore says...". It's anecdotal at best, and at least that dodgy bit of lore was written down somewhere along the line. I could say "I know a hundred women who love space marines the way they are". Without evidence, anecdotes hold very little weight.


Plus, I am also skeptical about changing something because of an outspoken community, because these things never take into account all the people quietly enjoying things the way they are. Lucozade caved to people requesting that they reduce the sugar content, and now it tastes horrible. They didn't notice all the people quietly enjoying it the way it is because nobody makes signs and marches up and down shouting about how good things are right now! (Not saying anyone's doing this, btw, it's just a passing comment).

Ultimately, if 100,000 people think something's fine but don't say anything and 200 people think it's not fine and are outspoken about it, then people start saying things like "most people want this!", because you have 200 people saying they want it and nobody saying they don't. 100,000 people actually either don't want it or don't care either way, but they aren't shouting about it so they get overlooked.

Adding female marines so marines get an in-lore boost to their recruitment, plus some cool new models, perhaps even a new unit about how the gene-seed reacts with certain women to make them even more dangerous soldiers than normal marines, making an elite CC unit with lore to back it up, and that sort of thing is 100% an awesome route to go down. But doing it because some people said they wanted it, not because it's an awesome thing but because they wanted to feel included, is the wrong reason to do it.



I guess I just feel that if you change things to "add female models to make women feel included", then you're reinforcing the idea that they are not included because the models aren't female. You're feeding the "boys get action man and girls get barbies" mentality which makes the problems in the first place. You're treating the symptoms whilst strengthening the actual reason for them.

Don't add girls to things to let girls play. Instead make the shops and such more welcoming to them, and stop reinforcing the idea that "you can't play with those because they are for boys". There is no reason why women can't play with space marines as they are. Nobody is telling them they can't use them, and most people don't think that women shouldn't play (excluding the donkeycaves of the world). The only reasons for people to not do something because they "don't feel represented" is a fundamental issue with society and the conditioning that people have received, and instead of tearing it down people build around it and then wonder why it's still there afterwards.

Saying "women don't feel represented by men, so we added women" does nothing to solve the actual problem, which is "women don't feel represented by men" - it only reinforces it. Saying "it's okay, you can come in, we have female models for you" is reinforcing the idea that they couldn't before, because of the models being male. People need to stop separating themselves into groups and then complaining that their group isn't represented. I've never watched an advert that featured a woman and thought "I can't buy this toothpaste because it was a woman on the advert". I consider "people" to represent me, and then make logical deductions that some product aren't relevant to me. In the same way as when I see adverts which clearly picked out actors to represent every race they could think of I think "wow, that was a racist way to cast that advert", I see people saying "we need to add women so that women feel like they can play" as sexist, and fundamentally more so than "why are marines all men in the first place". Marines were all men because those were the models and they couldn't afford to make women too, and then they added some lore to make that canon, and then the lore got (rightly) buried. The decisions were made for non-sexist reasons - so they didn't need to make more models for the same range, rather than "so they can all be men". Choosing to add female models so that women will like them is a fundamentally sexist decision to make. Adding female marines because they would be awesome is not.


So, once again to summarize:

"Yes" to female marines, add to the lore and get them added because that would be cool as hell and makes sense.

"No" to doing it just so that women feel like they can play the game.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





"No" to doing it just so that women feel like they can play the game.

And herein lies the problem.

Saying "women don't feel represented by men, so we added women" does nothing to solve the actual problem, which is "women don't feel represented by men" - it only reinforces it.

What? So the problem that you'd like to solve is that women don't feel represented by men? So you want women to feel represented by men? Why?

There is no reason why women can't play with space marines as they are.

Right. Everybody is aware of that. They just don't want to play with space marines as they are. They want to play with space marines with female head swaps.
If having barbies is a problem, I don't see how forcing girls to play with GI Joes is a solution to that problem. (not that female space marines are in any way comparable to barbie, nor are they even a "girl's toy for girls")

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/21 12:42:33


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Rihgu wrote:
"No" to doing it just so that women feel like they can play the game.

And herein lies the problem.

Saying "women don't feel represented by men, so we added women" does nothing to solve the actual problem, which is "women don't feel represented by men" - it only reinforces it.

What? So the problem that you'd like to solve is that women don't feel represented by men? So you want women to feel represented by men? Why?

There is no reason why women can't play with space marines as they are.

Right. Everybody is aware of that. They just don't want to play with space marines as they are. They want to play with space marines with female head swaps.


I feel like I've steered this into somewhat more political waters than it needed to be, apologies.

1: Not sure why changing things to improve them instead of to pander to the outspoken few is a problem.

2: Why shouldn't women feel represented by men? Why should there be that wall there between them? Why should a woman look at a space marine and judge the model and the game as a whole based on the gender of said plastic model?

3: "I don't like this, you have to change it" is not a behaviour that should be met with positive reinforcement.

There have been a huge amount of very good reasons for changing marines to include females. this includes:

• Doubling recruitment thanks to the work done creating primaris marines, which can be expanded to also work on women, huzzah!
• They would be cool models
• There's not any real reason why there aren't any any more, as the old lore is basically forgotten.

There is also one bad reason which people keep carping on about as if it's the only reason that matters:

• So that women can play the game


Now, I don't doubt that by adding female marines because it makes sense to and they would be cool models would have positive effects for the gaming community regarding the amount of women who are interested in the hobby. But I do feel very strongly that this should not be the driving reason why the change is made. Not least because GW has already made it clear they are trying to avoid politics in their games.


12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in gb
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say






Spoiler:
 some bloke wrote:


I feel like I've steered this into somewhat more political waters than it needed to be, apologies.

1: Not sure why changing things to improve them instead of to pander to the outspoken few is a problem.

Who are the "outspoken few" are you talking about here? We've established already that women are a minority in the 40k hobby so are you implying that the majority, i.e. hobbyists who are men, should not take their opinions into account because there are fewer of them?

Spoiler:
2: Why shouldn't women feel represented by men? Why should there be that wall there between them? Why should a woman look at a space marine and judge the model and the game as a whole based on the gender of said plastic model?

The same reason a PoC isn't going to feel represented by a white person. It's pretty simple and I'm 100% sure you know why representation matters to people but are choosing to be difficult instead.

Spoiler:
3: "I don't like this, you have to change it" is not a behaviour that should be met with positive reinforcement.

Except this isn't that. This is "The hobby has a very boys-only mentality that has created an uncomfortable/hostile environment for women hobbyists and the crux of the boys-only mentality is the male-exclusive nature of the flagship faction that has poor background reasoning for why it is male-exclusive". Of course, if you'd actually read and understood the arguments that have been presented you'd know that.

Spoiler:
There have been a huge amount of very good reasons for changing marines to include females. this includes:

• Doubling recruitment thanks to the work done creating primaris marines, which can be expanded to also work on women, huzzah!
• They would be cool models
• There's not any real reason why there aren't any any more, as the old lore is basically forgotten.

There is also one bad reason which people keep carping on about as if it's the only reason that matters:

• So that women can play the game

The background reasons are justification for the IRL reason. You can't have one without the other.

Spoiler:
Now, I don't doubt that by adding female marines because it makes sense to and they would be cool models would have positive effects for the gaming community regarding the amount of women who are interested in the hobby. But I do feel very strongly that this should not be the driving reason why the change is made. Not least because GW has already made it clear they are trying to avoid politics in their games.

Representation isn't politics, just like addressing racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/bigotry isn't politics.
And just so we are 100% clear on whether 40k is political or not, it absolutely is and always has been a mockery of religious dogmatism, fascism, and militarism.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 13:34:47


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Who are the "outspoken few" are you talking about here? We've established already that women are a minority in the 40k hobby so are you implying that the majority, i.e. hobbyists who are men, should not take their opinions into account because there are fewer of them?


Not at all. I am simply explaining how one person shouting has more voice than a thousand staying quiet.

The same reason a PoC isn't going to feel represented by a white person. It's pretty simple and I'm 100% sure you know why representation matters to people but are choosing to be difficult instead.


And I see this as an issue in that a PoC feels like anyone of a different race to them is not representative of them. That is, fundamentally, racism. "I can't do this because there's no PoC in the advert" is racist, because it involves making a decision based on race. If you stop seeing everything as groups of race, gender etc. Then you'll find that you don't have a thousand boxes to tick just to make sure that everyone is represented. "People" should be enough.

Except this isn't that. This is "The hobby has a very boys-only mentality that has created an uncomfortable/hostile environment for women hobbyists and the crux of the boys-only mentality is the male-exclusive nature of the flagship faction that has poor background reasoning for why it is male-exclusive". Of course, if you'd actually read and understood the arguments that have been presented you'd know that.


Setting aside the needless dig at the end of your comment in the pile of "not worth rising to", Yes, I agree that 40k is a very male-oriented hobby and that it is uncomfortable or hostile for women. But I also don't think that the problem there is in the gender of the models, it's in the social skills (or lack thereof) of the common fanbase. And yes, I agree that marines have basically nothing tying them to being all male, and that they should be made all female - as you would know if you had read or understood any of my previous posts (dammit I rose to it...).

The background reasons are justification for the IRL reason. You can't have one without the other.


I'd say you're wrong there.

The grimness and darkness of 40k has notably reduced over time. The lore has changed, without clear reasons, because they had IRL reasons for making it more family friendly. That's IRL reasons and no lore reasons.

Similarly, if someone said "Hey ,why don't we make a faction of marines who are vikings and ride wolves and other awesome things", there's no IRL reason for that except "That would be so awesome". There's no agenda to make 40k more representative to vikings when they made space wolves. They did it because it was awesome. Lore reasons happened to justify the chapter, and they made it happen. That's what they need to to for female marines. There should be no political agenda driving changes to a game set in a fictional universe. And yes, adding female marines to increase representation is political. Adding them because they'd be awesome is not. I hope that difference isn't lost on anyone.

Representation isn't politics, just like addressing racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/bigotry isn't politics.
And just so we are 100% clear on whether 40k is political or not, it absolutely is and always has been a mockery of religious dogmatism, fascism, and militarism.


Anything which is done to further a specific way of thinking externally to 40k is political. It is real-world issues becoming problems for the game to solve. If the Nazis had won and every race was changed to be aryan, that would be political. Perhaps people are so used to politicians being self-serving lying hot-air machines stealing oxygen from the average person that they can't distinguish the phrase "it's not political" from "it's not a bad thing".

Just because it improves things by our current standards does not mean it isn't political.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




po·lit·i·cal
/pəˈlidək(ə)l/


adjective
relating to the government or the public affairs of a country.

Saying women should be more represented in a hobby does not meet the definition of Political. Please refrain from trying to use incorrect definitions of common words to fit your argument.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
po·lit·i·cal
/pəˈlidək(ə)l/


adjective
relating to the government or the public affairs of a country.

Saying women should be more represented in a hobby does not meet the definition of Political. Please refrain from trying to use incorrect definitions of common words to fit your argument.


Fair enough, I stand corrected on the definition of political, though I daresay that there is a much more colloquially used aspect of it which does relate to the whole "political correctness" thing.

Nevertheless, yes let's make female marines, so they can be awesome.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in jp
Bounding Assault Marine




Stuck in the snow.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
po·lit·i·cal
/pəˈlidək(ə)l/


adjective
relating to the government or the public affairs of a country.

Saying women should be more represented in a hobby does not meet the definition of Political. Please refrain from trying to use incorrect definitions of common words to fit your argument.


You are objectively incorrect...

From Merriam-Webster

po·​lit·​i·​cal | \ pə-ˈli-ti-kəl
Definition of political

1a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government
b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2 : of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3 : organized in governmental terms political units
4 : involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system political prisoners


Stop being a dishonest pedant.

And if you're next argument is "Women aren't political" have a cookie, you're right! Because that's not what's being claimed and you know it.
Representation is very much the party politics of the moment with Right leaning figures railing against Critical Theory and equity initiatives while the Left is championing Anti-Structural Racism and progressive initiatives.
The idea of calling for representational equity edits on a piece of fiction very much echos the political zeitgeist of the moment...
   
Made in gb
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say






Spoiler:
 some bloke wrote:

Not at all. I am simply explaining how one person shouting has more voice than a thousand staying quiet.

If you don't care enough to get involved in the conversation then your opinion doesn't get considered. The "silent majority" doesn't matter because they are silent.

Spoiler:

And I see this as an issue in that a PoC feels like anyone of a different race to them is not representative of them. That is, fundamentally, racism. "I can't do this because there's no PoC in the advert" is racist, because it involves making a decision based on race. If you stop seeing everything as groups of race, gender etc. Then you'll find that you don't have a thousand boxes to tick just to make sure that everyone is represented. "People" should be enough.

Yeah, that ain't what I said chief but go off on how PoC are racist for wanting to see themselves represented in media.

Spoiler:

Setting aside the needless dig at the end of your comment in the pile of "not worth rising to", Yes, I agree that 40k is a very male-oriented hobby and that it is uncomfortable or hostile for women. But I also don't think that the problem there is in the gender of the models, it's in the social skills (or lack thereof) of the common fanbase. And yes, I agree that marines have basically nothing tying them to being all male, and that they should be made all female - as you would know if you had read or understood any of my previous posts (dammit I rose to it...).

If you agree that there should be female SM then why are you still arguing about it?

Spoiler:

I'd say you're wrong there.

The grimness and darkness of 40k has notably reduced over time. The lore has changed, without clear reasons, because they had IRL reasons for making it more family friendly. That's IRL reasons and no lore reasons.

Similarly, if someone said "Hey ,why don't we make a faction of marines who are vikings and ride wolves and other awesome things", there's no IRL reason for that except "That would be so awesome". There's no agenda to make 40k more representative to vikings when they made space wolves. They did it because it was awesome. Lore reasons happened to justify the chapter, and they made it happen. That's what they need to to for female marines. There should be no political agenda driving changes to a game set in a fictional universe. And yes, adding female marines to increase representation is political. Adding them because they'd be awesome is not. I hope that difference isn't lost on anyone.

How are those things not connected? Representation is good and you think female SM are awesome. Problem solved.
As for SW being changed because "it was awesome", I can 100% guarantee that "more Space Marine equal more money" was the driving factor there.

Spoiler:

Anything which is done to further a specific way of thinking externally to 40k is political. It is real-world issues becoming problems for the game to solve. If the Nazis had won and every race was changed to be aryan, that would be political. Perhaps people are so used to politicians being self-serving lying hot-air machines stealing oxygen from the average person that they can't distinguish the phrase "it's not political" from "it's not a bad thing".

Just because it improves things by our current standards does not mean it isn't political.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
 Jack Flask wrote:


po·​lit·​i·​cal | \ pə-ˈli-ti-kəl
Definition of political

1a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government
b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2 : of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3 : organized in governmental terms political units
4 : involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system political prisoners


Stop being a dishonest pedant.

And if you're next argument is "Women aren't political" have a cookie, you're right! Because that's not what's being claimed and you know it.
Representation is very much the party politics of the moment with Right leaning figures railing against Critical Theory and equity initiatives while the Left is championing Anti-Structural Racism and progressive initiatives.
The idea of calling for representational equity edits on a piece of fiction very much echos the political zeitgeist of the moment...

The thing is chief, anything can be made "political" at any time. Whenever someone says "keep politics out of the hobby", they never mean "I don't want to talk about the latest General Election", they mean "I don't want to hear people's problems with the hobby because then I have to look at my own biases and prejudices to analyse if I am a bad person".
The "Warhammer is for Everyone" message wasn't aimed at anyone on the political axis yet the people who took umbrage with it were overwhelming right-wing or held exclusionary (read racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic) tendencies.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/21 16:25:00


 
   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut






Dont post crap like this on the forum - ingtaer

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 19:53:12


"But the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed..." 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Background
Go to: