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
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





some bloke wrote:
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.
Nearly every woman hobbyist I've seen and interacted with has echoed support of this. And I know I fair amount of women hobbyists. I know comparatively few who don't.

Sure, it's anecdotal, but people have been linking repeatedly in this thread to women-led projects or statements echoing exactly what we've been saying - that the hobby as it is right now is not representative, and that adding representative figures would be really nice.

What do you say about those comments? Do you sweep them under the rug? Do you dismiss them as "the loud vocal minority"? What stops me from dismissing anyone's comments as just "the loud vocal minority, not to be taken seriously"?

"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.
Because real people wanting something is exactly the same as "made up book says no", right?

This is exactly what I mean about reducing the impact of female voices - you're dismissing them out of hand without even listening.
I could say "I know a hundred women who love space marines the way they are".
Any evidence of women saying that?
Without evidence, anecdotes hold very little weight.
Good thing we've been pointing in this thread to evidence of women saying that. Hell, just go have a look on Twitter - you'll find plenty of them.


Plus, I am also skeptical about changing something because of an outspoken community
Who says it's outspoken? Gonna need some sources on that one.
because these things never take into account all the people quietly enjoying things the way they are.
That all depends who's enjoying it.

If it's men quietly enjoying women not getting representation, that's not really that fair, is it?
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.
Sure - but if 200 people think it's a problem, and they get ignored because of a silent 100,000 that might not actually exist, but *might* exist, that's a problem because their issue has just been shot down because someone invented an imaginary "silent majority" to discredit their argument.

End of the day, we have actual proof that there are many women calling for this. And unless you can prove that there's a sizeable silent majority who aren't just indifferent, but actively prefer how things are, all you're doing is inventing a problem.

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 disagree, I think that's entirely the *right* reason to do something - because what's the point of doing something if no-one wants it?

And I especially don't like this pervasive "doing things to feel included is bad" tone I'm getting from your comments. Why is wanting to be included bad? Don't we want everyone to feel welcome? Isn't that why we came to this community - to feel a sense of being welcomed?

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.
Except that's exactly the opposite of what's happening, regarding action men and barbie dolls, because they're marketed and treated in very different ways! A female action man is not a barbie doll, because they're marketed different, they have different design, aesthetic functions, and roles - a female action man is the equivalent to a woman Space Marine. The barbie doll is the Sisters of Battle mentality, where women need a whole unique aesthetic and design function and role to exist - by feeding the whole "if women want a strong woman, they can have Sisters of Battle, but you're not allowed to touch the Space Marines", you're adding to that sense of distinction and difference!

You want women to feel like they're naturally part of 40k? Get rid of the unnatural restrictions - such as "no women Space Marines". The symptom of women's exclusion isn't "women aren't represented", the symptom is "women don't feel welcome in 40k" - the reason is because of a lack of fair and even-handed representation.

Don't add girls to things to let girls play.
That's not what anyone's saying. Read my arguments.
Instead make the shops and such more welcoming to them
Yes, by making women more visible in them, and removing arbitrary limitations. Gee, almost like that was my point all along.
and stop reinforcing the idea that "you can't play with those because they are for boys".
Yes, by removing the idea that there are "boys toys" in the first place by including women in them.
There is no reason why women can't play with space marines as they are.
Except that they simply don't want to, because they don't want to play as a faction that contributes to the whole "all-male" issue.

You say "there's no reason", but we've been telling you what the reason is. You just don't feel that same reason yourself.
Nobody is telling them they can't use them
Overtly, no - but you'd be foolish to think that by including all men and no women that it wouldn't have some effect in distancing women from the faction.
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.
And you know how to deal with those fundamental issues in society? You hear them out, and act on them, instead of dismissing them because you personally don't feel it.

If people don't like it because they feel unrepresented, that's an entirely valid reason, and I don't know why you're so hellbent on erasing it.

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.
So you think women should be represented by men?

Why *shouldn't* women be represented by women? Why do women need to settle with being represented by men when there's no real reason they need to be represented by men in the first damn place?

That's the crux of the issue - you're acting like women *should* be settling for being represented by men - I'm asking why they needed to be represented by men in the first place. Because as we've agreed, the lore is arbitrary, so there's no real reason we couldn't have had men and women representing, well, men and women.
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.
Well yeah - when people are literally saying that's why they didn't, I think the correct thing to do is to act on that, instead of ignoring them and telling them their feelings aren't valid.
People need to stop separating themselves into groups and then complaining that their group isn't represented.
Oh, shouldn't they now?

Why?
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".
A toothpaste advert isn't the same thing, and you know it.
I consider "people" to represent me, and then make logical deductions that some product aren't relevant to me.
Oh, such as the logical deduction of "there's an explicit rule saying that women aren't welcome in this faction, and there's an awful lot of people IRL giving people grief if they include women in this faction. Maybe I, as a woman, might not be welcome here, because of the explicit signs that I am different, and to be excluded".

I notice that you bring up "we shouldn't be looking to promote ideas of different between men and women" - so why are you defending the lore that does the same?
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".
Non-sexist reasons or not, it's still exclusionary, and that's the bottom line - it didn't have to be.
Choosing to add female models so that women will like them is a fundamentally sexist decision to make.
I really think your definition of sexist needs work, because that ain't it.

Including women for fair representation is entirely the opposite of sexism.
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.
So, basically, screw women's feelings if what they suggest isn't "cool as hell"? How charming.

I'll tell you what "makes sense" - getting rid of exclusionary lore so that everyone feels welcome.

some bloke wrote:1: Not sure why changing things to improve them instead of to pander to the outspoken few is a problem.
Nothing's wrong with changing things to improve them. The issue is that you're dismissing pretty valid criticisms as "the outspoken few" and listening to them is "pandering" - as well as being unable to accept that improving representation *is* "improving" things.

2: Why shouldn't women feel represented by men?
Why should they need to in the first place?
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?
Why should the plastic models need arbitrary rules on who can and can't wear certain types of power armour? That's the only wall I see.

3: "I don't like this, you have to change it" is not a behaviour that should be met with positive reinforcement.
And likewise, "I don't feel underrepresented, so if you have representation issues, sucks to be you, I guess!" isn't a good behaviour either.

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
No-one gave that reason though. It's a ridiculously reductive and false reading into a much more complex set of issues and complaints. The fact you keep being so reductive of it is hardly fair on your part.


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.
Including women isn't political. End of story.

Jack Flask wrote: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.
Great. So let's stop claiming this is political, and keep on topic, which is "why can't we have women Space Marines", instead of all this jumping at "Critical Theory" and "Anti-Structural Racism" which you saw fit to mention.
The idea of calling for representational equity edits on a piece of fiction very much echos the political zeitgeist of the moment...
Or, alternatively, representation is just a good thing to have, and isn't politically motivated beyond "hey, shouldn't everyone feel welcome here"?


Removed - BrookM

the_scotsman wrote:I think there may be some underlying issues you yourself have to work through rather than there being any truth to these frankly wild claims you're making here.
Echoed. I don't think that women Space Marines is the real issue at hand here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
wiles of the femoid

Next 40k novel title confirmed.
Space Marine Battles Series: Wiles of the Femoid

coming soon

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/21 19:57:50



They/them

 
   
Made in jp
Bounding Assault Marine




Stuck in the snow.

 Gert wrote:
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.


I feel like it's pretty clear what he's trying to say, but here goes...

If the underlying reason for wanting a change is because of your personal beliefs on this change being "correct/good for society" as it aligns with your real world views rather than is informed by the logic of the fiction then that is political.

Now of course, nearly every piece of fiction is born under the influence of it's authors beliefs reflecting their norms/politics/ect. The thing with a fiction like 40k is that after literal decades of having many authors add to it's canon and as the politics of the real world changed, the initial political ideals of the original authors has slowly washed away and been supplanted with a in own set of logic, norms, etc. This is largely what people are talking about when they complain that "the humor/satire is gone from 40k" because it's no longer actually parodying anything, the setting has in a sense come to it's own life. Declaring people heretics and exterminatus-ing planets is no longer a commentary on Cold War era Red Scare witch hunts or the callous disregard of the government for it's citizens lives, it is the authentic internal reality by which the 41st Millennium operates in the imagination of it's fans.

The reason this topic (female space marines) always becomes so nasty is because it collides one groups feelings about personal authorship against another groups feelings of that fiction should be allowed to operate outside the concerns of the real world. Particularly when there are other ways of increasing female representation that don't clash with the canon (adding more female models to almost every other faction) the demand for female space marines feels incredibly politically motivated especially in the current era of equity discourse.


 Gert wrote:
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.


The fact that you think someone wanting to preserve the state of a fiction they enjoy is them "trying to avoid their own biases and prejudices" and that this by default outs them as a "bad person", is very much operating in bad faith.

I'm not against female representation on the whole or increasing it within 40k. I'm not against fostering a welcome environment for new players regardless of gender or race. The vast majority of people who have disagreed with you have echoed those same points. But the fundamental point that you and others refuse to acknowledge is that achieving that does not in any way require female space marines, yet you insist on fighting over this specific hill.

Even a hypothetical scenario where space marines are pushed in line with every other faction and every non-space marine range gets equal representation of female models was declared to be still unequal by Sgt. Smudge because "it'll never happen and also it has to be space marines because they are the most popular".

Anything anyone says to you will be dismissed offhand regardless of the reasoning because you've already decided that they're lesser than you and a "bad person". You just keep building strawmen, nitpicking technicalities, and then sprinkling in accusations of bigotry where you can. And what strikes me the most is that were this conversation about anything other than gender representation it would have never passed GO. If this was a "I don't like that Tau look like anime robots" thread everyone would just reply either "you don't have to play Tau" or "then convert them to match your vision", conversation over.

But the second it's about gender it becomes a game of "you must agree with me or you're a sexist" which feels pretty IRL political when that line of thought seemingly has no relation to the internal workings of 40k itself.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 19:58:40


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Jack Flask wrote:


If the underlying reason for wanting a change is because of your personal beliefs on this change being "correct/good for society" as it aligns with your real world views rather than is informed by the logic of the fiction then that is political.

Now of course, nearly every piece of fiction is born under the influence of it's authors beliefs reflecting their norms/politics/ect. The thing with a fiction like 40k is that after literal decades of having many authors add to it's canon and as the politics of the real world changed, the initial political ideals of the original authors has slowly washed away and been supplanted with a in own set of logic, norms, etc. This is largely what people are talking about when they complain that "the humor/satire is gone from 40k" because it's no longer actually parodying anything, the setting has in a sense come to it's own life. Declaring people heretics and exterminatus-ing planets is no longer a commentary on Cold War era Red Scare witch hunts or the callous disregard of the government for it's citizens lives, it is the authentic internal reality by which the 41st Millennium operates in the imagination of it's fans.


Within the canon of warhammer 40,000, the presence of females within:

-the highest ranks of the ecclesiarchy
-the high lords of terra
-the inquisition

Indicates that there is essentially no sexism present within the the Imperium as we understand it today.

The canon has already established that:

-The limitation that marines can only be made from male stock is a primarily technological one

and

-The technology surrounding the creation of marines can be both understood and altered by multiple individuals within the canon of warhammer 40,000 (Cawl, Bile, Rakarth at least)

Purely removing any considerations from our current world, and looking only at the canon of the fictional world of warhammer 40,000, it appears to me that there's nothing to stop the company that creates the warhammer canon from deciding with any given Primaris Space Marine release "and Cawl also figured out how to alter the creation process to allow for female stock" any more than they might decide "And Cawl designed the Primaris Space Marines a floating grav-tank" or "And Cawl designed the Primaris Space Marines with another, special organ to do XYZ"

And as for things on the chaos side of the fence...a person looking solely at the canon can really only make the assumption that there are female chaos marines. There are chaos marines with bat wings and bid heads and squid tentacles and horns. They obviously and self-evidently don't adhere to the same physiological limitations of imperial space marines, you'd need to have some kind of canonical reference as to why somehow the magic of the warp that can take a space marine and create a gibbering pile of maws and tendrils can't take a space marine and tranform one set of body parts into a different set of body parts.

So if peoples reasoning that female space marines should be introduced is exterior to canon and, therefore, political, why is the stance that female space marines should not be introduced not also exterior to canon and, therefore, political?

We're working from the exact same canon here, aren't we? With the exact same recent events? We recently had the lore bit posted recently that indicated that at least some high-ranked members of Space Marine chapters would be receptive to being able to use female recruits - have you ever seen any fluff that indicated that certain space marine leaders would NOT be receptive to female recruits? Given GW's usual attempts to remain apolitical, I'd be fairly surprised.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






Spoiler:
 Jack Flask wrote:

I feel like it's pretty clear what he's trying to say, but here goes...

If the underlying reason for wanting a change is because of your personal beliefs on this change being "correct/good for society" as it aligns with your real world views rather than is informed by the logic of the fiction then that is political.

Now of course, nearly every piece of fiction is born under the influence of it's authors beliefs reflecting their norms/politics/ect. The thing with a fiction like 40k is that after literal decades of having many authors add to it's canon and as the politics of the real world changed, the initial political ideals of the original authors has slowly washed away and been supplanted with a in own set of logic, norms, etc. This is largely what people are talking about when they complain that "the humor/satire is gone from 40k" because it's no longer actually parodying anything, the setting has in a sense come to it's own life. Declaring people heretics and exterminatus-ing planets is no longer a commentary on Cold War era Red Scare witch hunts or the callous disregard of the government for it's citizens lives, it is the authentic internal reality by which the 41st Millennium operates in the imagination of it's fans.

The reason this topic (female space marines) always becomes so nasty is because it collides one groups feelings about personal authorship against another groups feelings of that fiction should be allowed to operate outside the concerns of the real world. Particularly when there are other ways of increasing female representation that don't clash with the canon (adding more female models to almost every other faction) the demand for female space marines feels incredibly politically motivated especially in the current era of equity discourse.

The problem with your argument is that people are using a piece of lore to actively cause harm/distress to others within the hobby. So your point about people wanting the setting to be separate from reality falls apart when people use that setting as an excuse to present their exclusionary views as acceptable. If someone were to complain about being told a gay person can't play SM because the lore doesn't have gay SM, would you tell them to leave their "politics" out of the hobby?
The lore people keep saying is infallible and immutable is pseudo-scientific wish wash that gets changed as frequently as people change their t-shirts. We've had new things added in as "they've always been there" and others as "these are new developments". There are so many in-universe reasons to add female SM to the setting and they are all just as valid as things like Primaris or Centurion suits.
I also want to say, why is inclusion so bad? Why are inclusion and representation only acceptable if it's for "lore" reasons rather than what you call "political" ones? Who decides which is which?

Spoiler:

The fact that you think someone wanting to preserve the state of a fiction they enjoy is them "trying to avoid their own biases and prejudices" and that this by default outs them as a "bad person", is very much operating in bad faith.

I'm not against female representation on the whole or increasing it within 40k. I'm not against fostering a welcome environment for new players regardless of gender or race. The vast majority of people who have disagreed with you have echoed those same points. But the fundamental point that you and others refuse to acknowledge is that achieving that does not in any way require female space marines, yet you insist on fighting over this specific hill.

Even a hypothetical scenario where space marines are pushed in line with every other faction and every non-space marine range gets equal representation of female models was declared to be still unequal by Sgt. Smudge because "it'll never happen and also it has to be space marines because they are the most popular".

Anything anyone says to you will be dismissed offhand regardless of the reasoning because you've already decided that they're lesser than you and a "bad person". You just keep building strawmen, nitpicking technicalities, and then sprinkling in accusations of bigotry where you can. And what strikes me the most is that were this conversation about anything other than gender representation it would have never passed GO. If this was a "I don't like that Tau look like anime robots" thread everyone would just reply either "you don't have to play Tau" or "then convert them to match your vision", conversation over.

But the second it's about gender it becomes a game of "you must agree with me or you're a sexist" which feels pretty IRL political when that line of thought seemingly has no relation to the internal workings of 40k itself.

There is a difference between "preserving fiction" and using that fiction to promote exclusionary and harmful ideas. I'm not saying every single person who doesn't want to talk about real-world issues while in a hobby space is a bad person but the majority of those who do use "keep politics out of the hobby" do it to stifle discussion about genuine issues such as racism/sexism/etc.
The problem with the supposedly perfect hypothetical situation people keep bringing up is that not only is it hypothetical, but it's also utterly unrealistic. GW would more likely make the Emperor an anime Cat-girl than take SM away from their flagship product position, so suggesting it as a solution is completely meaningless. It's not a good scenario because it doesn't take a single fact of reality into account, it's not a hypothetical it's a fantasy.
At what point did I say anyone that disagreed with me was "lesser" or a bad person? Unless someone has said something that is overtly sexist/exclusionary, which BTW there are instances of in this thread, I've been fairly tolerant with my posts. Have you considered that more than a month on from this thread's beginning, I'm simply sick of seeing the exact same arguments trotted out week after week?
The discussion in this thread has shown that people are more willing to cause harm/distress to others than change a tiny part of the SM background that hasn't been featured in any meaningful way since the early 2000s. People already convert their SM to have female heads and write their own stories for them and these hobbyists are routinely harassed/threatened for it. Nobody is harassing people for not playing T'au.


Spoiler:

While I agree that there are a lot of guys with a wide range of social issues, many of whom who have suffered all sorts of social abuse and bullying, I strongly disagree with the idea that new people should be discouraged from joining or pushed out of the hobby.

The part that irritates me the most about threads like these especially is that it usually isn't even women demanding this. Certainly their are some women who feel it should be changed but usually it is this handful of people and a very vocal group of male allies that claim to speak for all women rather than just for themselves. Which both robs other female hobbyists of their own voices and forces them into a conflict they might want nothing to do with.

Have you considered that there aren't women posting on this forum because of posters like Matt who are overtly hostile to their presence in the hobby?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 18:42:22


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Jack Flask wrote:If the underlying reason for wanting a change is because of your personal beliefs on this change being "correct/good for society" as it aligns with your real world views rather than is informed by the logic of the fiction then that is political.
But what happens when we consider that the fiction has no immutable logic, or that its logic is entirely arbitrary?

Similarly, not wanting a change is equally political, no? Neutrality and status quo are political positions too, yes?

The reason this topic (female space marines) always becomes so nasty is because it collides one groups feelings about personal authorship against another groups feelings of that fiction should be allowed to operate outside the concerns of the real world.
The problem is, even stepping away from how including women isn't political, you've already just stated that 40k is not fiction that operated outside the concerns of the real world.

Similarly, I also have to reinforce that while 40k "lore" might not be part of the real world, the moment that it becomes part of a real world hobby where real people can be excluded from real communities, I don't think that we can pretend that it's that divorced from reality.
Particularly when there are other ways of increasing female representation that don't clash with the canon
Why are we concerned about clashing with the canon? The canon's as solid as air: there's nothing to clash with.
the demand for female space marines feels incredibly politically motivated especially in the current era of equity discourse.
Or, as I say again - featuring women where there's no reason not to have them isn't political - it's just fair.


The fact that you think someone wanting to preserve the state of a fiction they enjoy
Why do they enjoy the fiction that excludes women though?

We're not asking to change every piece. It's 13 words. Do people love those 13 words that much? Would they not enjoy 40k if those 13 words were removed? Why so?
I'm not against female representation on the whole or increasing it within 40k. I'm not against fostering a welcome environment for new players regardless of gender or race. The vast majority of people who have disagreed with you have echoed those same points. But the fundamental point that you and others refuse to acknowledge is that achieving that does not in any way require female space marines, yet you insist on fighting over this specific hill.
And I've illustrated exactly why it does require women Astartes, and why it's ultimately fruitless even calling for the status quo to be maintained if people can't defend why Space Marines need to be male in the first place.

Even a hypothetical scenario where space marines are pushed in line with every other faction and every non-space marine range gets equal representation of female models was declared to be still unequal by Sgt. Smudge because "it'll never happen and also it has to be space marines because they are the most popular".
Because your hypothetical scenario is as realistic or practical as "everyone holds hands spontaneously and no-one acts like a chud or tries to exclude women because of **Totally Valid Reasons TM**".

It's unequal because you are proposing an entirely unrealistic solution to a problem that has no reason to exist in the first place, and could be solved with an embarrassingly easy solution.

So, forgive my bluntness when you're dancing around a pretty simple fix to a problem that has no reason exist by proposing entirely unrealistic solutions.

And what strikes me the most is that were this conversation about anything other than gender representation it would have never passed GO. If this was a "I don't like that Tau look like anime robots" thread everyone would just reply either "you don't have to play Tau" or "then convert them to match your vision", conversation over.
T'au having that particular aesthetic is intentionally built into their core aesthetic design, and always has been. It serves a very specific purpose, and at current, could not be fulfilled by any other faction.

On the other hand, Space Marines not including women serves no purpose (or rather, actively hinders what Space Marines currently are), and the whole "all male" trope is already done better by other factions.

They ain't the same thing.

But the second it's about gender it becomes a game of "you must agree with me or you're a sexist" which feels pretty IRL political when that line of thought seemingly has no relation to the internal workings of 40k itself.
Or rather, I have to wonder why people go to such lengths to defend something which serves no purpose other than to exclude people. And while I'm *sure* that most people are fine, when you see people defending exclusionary content so doggedly and making the kinds of comments that can only be interpreted as flat out gatekeeping, I have to wonder why it's women Space Marines that have so many people so ardently defending such an arbitrary and minor lore point. Especially when they accuse people of being part of some conspiracy, or that it's all just political grandstanding, or that it's to gain some kind of nebulous power.

While I agree that there are a lot of guys with a wide range of social issues, many of whom who have suffered all sorts of social abuse and bullying, I strongly disagree with the idea that new people should be discouraged from joining or pushed out of the hobby.
Very much agreed.

The part that irritates me the most about threads like these especially is that it usually isn't even women demanding this.
Actually, it's usually women commenting elsewhere, and their comments being picked up and repeated in male-dominated places like here.

And then those women's comments being ignored as part of the "vocal minority". So, perhaps you can wonder why women don't often make those comments in these spaces.
Certainly their are some women who feel it should be changed but usually it is this handful of people and a very vocal group of male allies that claim to speak for all women rather than just for themselves. Which both robs other female hobbyists of their own voices and forces them into a conflict they might want nothing to do with.
Again with these women hobbyists and their voices - women hobbyists *are* using their own voices. Conspicuously, they just all *happen* to be this "vocal minority". Or, perhaps you just don't like hearing them, and are convinced that there's this secret hidden majority who support and agree with you.

If so, where are they? If all you're hearing is "we'd like representation", have you considered that maybe that's what you should be listening to?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
The problem with your argument is that people are using a piece of lore to actively cause harm/distress to others within the hobby. So your point about people wanting the setting to be separate from reality falls apart when people use that setting as an excuse to present their exclusionary views as acceptable.
Exactly. The fiction can't stay divorced from reality because the fiction is used to inform what people do with their real models - and the real comments that get levelled at those real people when their real models don't match the fictional reality of the fictional lore.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 18:43:56



They/them

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





I looked through some of the earlier posts but hadn't seen this mentioned, I haven't been keeping up with the BL HH series since 2010 so I don't know what recent canonical evidence has changed; but remember when the Primachs wanted their best buddies from their adopted homeworlds to become marines, but many of them were too old to receive the geneseed proper? So instead they were afforded good enough genetic transmutation to become MEQs: such as Luther, friends of Russ, and later that bodyguard to Horus's remembrancer, etc. Other than Angron I don't know if any primarchs had female bffs, granted the one mentioned died with all his other slave freinds in their last stand when Big E stole him away. Anyways.
Was it ever established whether that was limited to guys?

Even before Primaris coming out of nowhere, marines would get fluff-additions because GW wanted to sell new models, often presented as chapter X found DAoT, but admechs finally gave the stamp of approval for mass distribution/fabrication.
The genetic-tinkering of the 13th Founding was a thing and has created some interesting chapters.
Primaris were shoehorned into the lore and have proven popular, the scope and scale of Sisters of battle have changed in recent years.
Would it be so weird to have MEQ via Heresy-era transhumanist augmentation?
Where they fit in the lore either as elite-sisters of battle, inquisition agents, more of Cawl-approved experimental chapters, Battletech/Kerensky style-lost Primarch coming from the fringes of known space in humanity's hour of need, etc.

And chaos is going to chaos. There was a bit more flexibility in the older editions when human champions could be elevated to daemon princes, and Fabius Bile is always mucking around. In my own headcanon there's a scout-equivalent tier of modified humans that traitor legions employ to keep lowly rabble in line while marines have better things to do.

It's not like there haven't been precedence in lore and general game evolution that would hinder introducing female M(EQ)s...
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 PondaNagura wrote:

It's not like there haven't been precedence in lore and general game evolution that would hinder introducing female M(EQ)s...


I mean no. We did just like, last week see the introduction of a Sisters of Battle mobile infantry suit more powerful than a custode, let alone a space marine. "Les Tueurs Cylindres" if you will.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





As far as lore, the best way to handle is simply not to make a thing of it. Just include a few female head options on the sprue; they can put a couple bodies in slightly redesigned armor if they like, but its hardly necessary. It just doesn't need a fluff justification, it can just be.
   
Made in nl
[MOD]
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Cozy cockpit of an Imperial Knight

Hey guys, some posts, quotes, or replies to said quote have been removed because, because YIKES, that was something else that served no purpose to this topic, other than stirring up gak for no good reason. Many thanks to those who have reported this mess and many thanks to all for keeping things civil, the offending poster has been dealt with.

GREAT LEADER IS DEAD
SOLO NOBRE MUST FALL
REMOVE THE MARKED TARGET TO ACCEPT THE CONTRACT
WELCOME BRIGADOR


 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






 LunarSol wrote:
As far as lore, the best way to handle is simply not to make a thing of it. Just include a few female head options on the sprue; they can put a couple bodies in slightly redesigned armor if they like, but its hardly necessary. It just doesn't need a fluff justification, it can just be.


Are you talking about an upgrade sprue?

In all honesty I think the brass at GW would 100% love this.
If GW ever go down this road, they will do it to the full fanfare of marketing and whole new range of marines.

'That's genius Johnson! That's what 40k lacks.. More marines! Why didn't I think of that!? This time with women heads!'

But - I just don't see GW stepping into this quagmire. You can yell about how this is not political till you blue in the face but will significant amount of customers see it that way?

I don't see them taking a potentially huge risk with their brand or their top selling product range. Ideology and peoples wants aside...
By all the SM fanboys account SM range is outselling all of creation which is why they get to have all the fun toys.. It appears they are doing something right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BrookM wrote:
Hey guys, some posts, quotes, or replies to said quote have been removed because, because YIKES, that was something else that served no purpose to this topic, other than stirring up gak for no good reason. Many thanks to those who have reported this mess and many thanks to all for keeping things civil, the offending poster has been dealt with.


"dealt with" ? Did somebody get banned for this thread?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/21 23:10:10


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in gb
Utilizing Careful Highlighting




U.k

 BrookM wrote:
Hey guys, some posts, quotes, or replies to said quote have been removed because, because YIKES, that was something else that served no purpose to this topic, other than stirring up gak for no good reason. Many thanks to those who have reported this mess and many thanks to all for keeping things civil, the offending poster has been dealt with.


Didn’t see what was said but I even consider this progress. Couple of years ago the whole thread should have been this with in hours. One bad egg and them not being able to shut down the thread gives me hope. Thanks for letting it run and thanks again to all for conducting yourselves as you have.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Andykp wrote:
 BrookM wrote:
Hey guys, some posts, quotes, or replies to said quote have been removed because, because YIKES, that was something else that served no purpose to this topic, other than stirring up gak for no good reason. Many thanks to those who have reported this mess and many thanks to all for keeping things civil, the offending poster has been dealt with.


Didn’t see what was said but I even consider this progress. Couple of years ago the whole thread should have been this with in hours. One bad egg and them not being able to shut down the thread gives me hope. Thanks for letting it run and thanks again to all for conducting yourselves as you have.


Somebody posted an incel screed. It was pathetic and rightfully called out for what it was. We don't need that rubbish in our community and it would surprise me were he to rejoin us after that nonsense. There's disagreement and then there's stark, outright misogyny which that was. Honestly, thanks to moderation on that one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Argive wrote:
"dealt with" ? Did somebody get banned for this thread?


A line was *really* crossed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 23:43:13


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Jack Flask wrote:
If this was a "I don't like that Tau look like anime robots" thread everyone would just reply either "you don't have to play Tau" or "then convert them to match your vision", conversation over.

I feel like you maybe weren't around when Tau were introduced to the game... There was plenty of discussion back then about their obvious anime influences and whether or not that was appropriate to the setting, and you (generic you, obviously not you personally) still come across the odd discussion about whether or not they belong in the game.



 PondaNagura wrote:
And chaos is going to chaos. There was a bit more flexibility in the older editions when human champions could be elevated to daemon princes, and Fabius Bile is always mucking around.

Indeed. There's even been at least one example in a Black Library publication (I want to say Storm of Iron, but can't remember for sure) of a woman enslaved by a World Eater champion killing him and taking his armour and position as a Champion of Chaos.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 23:49:58


 
   
Made in gb
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






It was indeed Storm of Iron and her last thought before being overtaken by the Deamon within the armour was that she had made a horrific mistake. Very Chaos.
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Argive wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
As far as lore, the best way to handle is simply not to make a thing of it. Just include a few female head options on the sprue; they can put a couple bodies in slightly redesigned armor if they like, but its hardly necessary. It just doesn't need a fluff justification, it can just be.


Are you talking about an upgrade sprue?

In all honesty I think the brass at GW would 100% love this.
I'm sure they would: they already do it with Chapter upgrade kits.
But - I just don't see GW stepping into this quagmire.
They were more than happy to create women Stormcast, who fill a largely similar role to Space Marines in AoS. I'll be honest, I could see them quite literally using Stormcast as a testing ground for Space Marines: take the risks on your newly created faction in your second largest game, and if they pay off, try it on the mainline faction.
You can yell about how this is not political till you blue in the face but will significant amount of customers see it that way?
That doesn't mean the significant amount of customers are still right.

I don't see them taking a potentially huge risk with their brand or their top selling product range. Ideology and peoples wants aside...
And that's why I think all these posts about "just make someone else the poster boy" doesn't work - because GW won't jeopardise Space Marines. However, I see them using Stormcast as a testing bed for Space Marines - and considering that Stormcast having women is generally well received...

Again, all I'm saying is that they're more than happy to change the Space Marine identity - and if it becomes economically expedient to add women (as so many companies are realising that the women's market is fairly lucrative for pop culture), you bet they'll do it.
By all the SM fanboys account SM range is outselling all of creation which is why they get to have all the fun toys.. It appears they are doing something right.
And is that anything to do with them being all men, and being exclusively so? I don't think so.

Unless you're implying that apparently people seem to love Space Marines primarily because they exclude women?

Plus, you hit on a great point - "Space Marines get to have all the fun toys" - maybe women want to feel involved in those fun toys too, hence why they don't want to pick up a different faction?
"dealt with" ? Did somebody get banned for this thread?
Without repeating their comment, because it's been deleted for a reason, it was frankly disgusting, exclusionary, and, dare I say, incredibly sexist.

I'll have it filed under what I mean about this hobby maybe not being that welcoming and inclusive. I'm very glad that the mods acted on it.


They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Argive wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
As far as lore, the best way to handle is simply not to make a thing of it. Just include a few female head options on the sprue; they can put a couple bodies in slightly redesigned armor if they like, but its hardly necessary. It just doesn't need a fluff justification, it can just be.


Are you talking about an upgrade sprue?

In all honesty I think the brass at GW would 100% love this.
I'm sure they would: they already do it with Chapter upgrade kits.


Im not sure.. To me its like:

Nothing says inclusion and representation like charging for inclusion and representation...

I think his solution would likely backfire. Also it means more SM stuff..
Proof would have to be in the proverbial pudding though.

But - I just don't see GW stepping into this quagmire.
They were more than happy to create women Stormcast, who fill a largely similar role to Space Marines in AoS. I'll be honest, I could see them quite literally using Stormcast as a testing ground for Space Marines: take the risks on your newly created faction in your second largest game, and if they pay off, try it on the mainline faction.


Yeeaaaah..... after they destroyed the game called WHFB in order to make room for AOS/storm casts.

You can yell about how this is not political till you blue in the face but will significant amount of customers see it that way?
That doesn't mean the significant amount of customers are still right.
And what if they are right? Who gets to decide.

I don't see them taking a potentially huge risk with their brand or their top selling product range. Ideology and peoples wants aside...
And that's why I think all these posts about "just make someone else the poster boy" doesn't work - because GW won't jeopardise Space Marines. However, I see them using Stormcast as a testing bed for Space Marines - and considering that Stormcast having women is generally well received...

Generally well received? I thought everyone loved storm casts in AOS.. (not an AOS player no idea)
How are giving more stuff to other armies jeopardise SM? SM are still there unchanged in this paradigm. We just get more of other stuff on top.. It means perhaps eroding the hegemony of SM which would be awesome.

Spoiler:
Again, all I'm saying is that they're more than happy to change the Space Marine identity - and if it becomes economically expedient to add women (as so many companies are realising that the women's market is fairly lucrative for pop culture), you bet they'll do it.


Market citations needed.
I can give you plenty examples of stuff gunning for representation at the cost of all else because of pressure (bit like this thread is trying to do).

https://www.oneangrygamer.net/get-woke-go-broke-the-master-list/


There are a few things on that list I actually liked.
Dark tower being chief amongst them. Fragging love that film.

When companies get confused about what their purpose and mission statement and go off doing something else they tend to loose money.
This is an observation. Not an endorsement of anything.

There are awesome franchises and things where you have women as main protagonists. Like SOB in 40k. Why cant we elevate those and bring about organic change without burning everything to the ground? Bringing up AOS storm cast as an example is really not a good play.. it was built on the ashes of WHFB and a lot of people lost their game. I'd rather this not happen to 40k.

By all the SM fanboys account SM range is outselling all of creation which is why they get to have all the fun toys.. It appears they are doing something right.
And is that anything to do with them being all men, and being exclusively so? I don't think so.

Unless you're implying that apparently people seem to love Space Marines primarily because they exclude women?


Not what I said. Don't put words in my mouth.

I just observed SM+40k are selling really really well and GW is doing really well as a company.
GW profits statement support this. Ask them why that is. Citation needed to prove otherwise.

Plus, you hit on a great point - "Space Marines get to have all the fun toys" - maybe women want to feel involved in those fun toys too, hence why they don't want to pick up a different faction?


Well sheeet maybe men who don't want to play SM want to have those toys too? What's being a woman has to do with anything? I don't want to play Warhammer space marine. Do you ?

Its of paramount importance more factions get more stuff and toys for longevity of the game. The fact you dislike SOB does not mean women wont like SOB... SOB should get all the same toys. Dragon SOB, Spiky SOB, Wolfy SOB etc the works! The sprinkle some for TAU and Eldar.

Rehashing SM with new heads and potentially boob plate is just lame IMO


I missed the exchange and bunch of the thread tbh.. . Not really a lot of time these days.
It certainly is not encouraging...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/22 01:43:53


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




I note how fast you abandoned talking about the absolutely awful take Matt Swain put up on your side of this argument. Then you doubled down on some facetious nonsense around boobplate that literally nobody has advocated for

Why do you feel the need to construct these flimsy pretences masquerading as an actual stance?

Why?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/22 01:49:27


 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






Catulle wrote:
I note how fast you abandoned talking about the absolutely awful take Matt Swain put up on your side of this argument. Then you doubled down on some facetious nonsense around boobplate that literally nobody has advocated for

Why do you feel the need to construct these flimsy pretences masquerading as an actual stance?

Why?


What are you on about ? I was genuinely curius what happened.
How can I know what he said if its removed? I'm not glued to my computer or this forum..

I'm arguing purely from my own perspective.
The fact you think there are some lines drawn suggest this is a highly popularized polarized political topic.. But I am repeatedly told it isn't.

Do you want me to go back and find quotes where people said "I guess they would need to have slightly different armour like AOS females" this is basically some version of boob plate. I also said "potential"
Its not facesticious. I think you are perhaps being facesticious... and misrepresenting what I am saying.

If you don't like the thread or the conversation you are welcome to leave.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/06/22 02:03:11


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles





Re: Whether women as Marines, would increase sales:

Anecdotally, I do know at least one middle-aged gamer who happens to be female and genuinely would make more purchases if female marines were an option; She has worked together fluff for her all-female all-Primaris Raven Guard successor, and doesn't quite have the time to learn how to 3d resin print her own female Marines. Guess I'll just have to print 'em for her and mail them if GW won't step up.

Re: The thread in general:

I stepped away from this for a weekend, but clearly I missed something unexpectedly horrific. So while this has been one of the most positive and productive things I've seen generated by Dakka community discussion. I've always been for female Space Marines, but this thread has advanced my understanding of the argument and given me an entire rebuttal munitions depot the next time I hear or see an argument against their inclusion, and it would be a shame to see it derailed. While I think the thread seems steady enough for the moment, I just want to be sure I get out a few words of praise, so if you'll indulge me a moment:

@Sgt. Smudge:

I can't let this thread reach a terminus without thanking you for your utterly indefatigable commitment to fairness and equality in this thread. You have the patience of a Necron saint and enough dogged perseverance to see these arguments through no matter how many times you've had to repeat yourself - even to the same people sometimes.

@The_Scotsman:

I've always thought you were the cleverest bastard on these boards. That impression has only been reinforced.

I'm going to find a place to put this utterly goddamn brilliant quote somewhere.

Spoiler:
 the_scotsman wrote:
"here's this faction that we've turned into a gigantic uber-customizable metagolem of infinite customizability, you can have them in a car on the ground in a plane, in every conceivable playstyle that exists in the game, every single represented aesthetic, ninety-trillion different armor marks and styles, historical inspirations, every color in the rainbow, every race and culture of humanity...

...but you CANT make them ladies. that is the sacred line across which we must throw our bodies and souls! Space Marines can be every conceivable configuration of 'your dudes' imaginable, SO LONG AS YOU DO NOT IMAGINE THEM AS YOUR DUDETTES!


@Macluvin:

Somehow possessing enough mystical ancient message-board-fu to start a thread on women as space marines and not have it locked. It is pretty awesome to see this much commitment to this dialogue in perhaps one of the few kinds of places it could happen - a place large enough to reach a decent number of ears, but not so large and loud that the voices all drown each other out before coherent thoughts can form.

@Insaniak:

Thank you for not only your measured contributions to the thread, but for not locking it.

@Gert, Andykp, Fezzik, other regular contributors I know I'm forgetting:

I know I've disagreed with at least one of you on something in 40K General, but to know we're together on this is more than enough; The way you guys have collectively stood up to every argument against inclusiveness has been gratifying to see in the Dakka community.

All this might sound a little cheesy and self-congratulatory, so in the interest of being slightly less self-congratulatory - Thanks to everyone on either side who's been willing to engage with the topic in good faith, because without the disagreement or questioning this would be three pages of people agreeing and then it would stop, and we wouldn't be able to present or advance the finer points of these arguments.

 the_scotsman wrote:
"here's this faction that we've turned into a gigantic uber-customizable metagolem of infinite customizability, you can have them in a car on the ground in a plane, in every conceivable playstyle that exists in the game, every single represented aesthetic, ninety-trillion different armor marks and styles, historical inspirations, every color in the rainbow, every race and culture of humanity...

...but you CANT make them ladies. that is the sacred line across which we must throw our bodies and souls! Space Marines can be every conceivable configuration of 'your dudes' imaginable, SO LONG AS YOU DO NOT IMAGINE THEM AS YOUR DUDETTES!"
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I think the three things I'm most struggling to understand is:

1: That space marines being all male and being the flagship product due to a popularity borne from reasons not related to gender is somehow causing people harm. It has come up repeatedly that this is causing people harm or distress, and I fail to see how.

Don't get me wrong, I can see how women not being represented in the game is problematic, and doesn't align with the current views, but I fail to see how it can actively harm someone that these little pieces of plastic have male heads and call each other "brother".

2: I don't see how the gender of small pieces of plastic makes the blindest odds when the stores where they would buy & play are dominated by predominantly socially awkward men who act as if they've never seen a woman up-close before.

3: I don't see "Representation" as a positive step. You can't stop discrimination (by race/gender/whatever) by saying "It's okay, we have a (race/gender/whatever) in our group!". People have been split into these groups - arranged by gender, skin colour, sexual orientation - and then instead of saying "no, we're all equal so stop putting us in boxes", we decided to instead refuse to engage with anything which doesn't represent our box, and lobby for change so our box is included in everything. Racism, Sexism and Homophobia all involve making decisions based on peoples race, gender and sexual orientation, and yet people still seem to think that if they are the ones making these decisions then they are not _ist. The walls of these boxes are self imposed, and instead of reminding people that they are there, we should be trying to make people forget that they ever were. Then perhaps we can end up somewhere where there are no walls separating people in our minds, instead of somewhere where the walls are so reinforced by good intentions that they are never coming down.

That ended up very preachy. I'll go back to the topic at hand.


Yeah sure, go for female marines, for whatever reasons you like.


And to build on CEO Kasen's post of appreciation, I'd like to say thanks to the people I've been arguing with, as for the most part It's been civil, and I have been corrected politely several times and do appreciate the politeness with which we have been disagreeing!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/22 08:32:04


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 de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

Some Bloke: I asked my wife about this. To your point 1: She says that the presentation of Space Marines, their hyper masculine nature, the absence of women from the artwork, broadcasts clearly to her that this game is Not For Her. She does not feel like she'd be particularly welcome in the space. Is this a major harm? No. But it is a minor one.

To point 2: The issue you're talking about here is reinforced and in some ways created by the point above - why is the space like that, why is it dominated by one group so much? Because other groups don't feel particularly welcomed or like it is For Them.

To point 3: I dunno man, I think a lot of people who get representation feel like it matters A LOT to them. When you're already represented really well in media and so on then it probably seems like it's not a big deal, but when you're not and then you finally get some representation, yeah, it does feel like a big deal. Can't you see how that would work?

As to female space marines, I really like the point that we have Werewolf Marines, Vampire Marines, Roman Marines, Cyborg Marines, Knight Marines, Mongol Biker Marines, Teacher Marines, Ninja Marines, Monster Hunter Marines, Paladin Marines, Super Marines, Edgy Marines, Bad Marines, Evil Batman Marines, Egyptian Terracotta Army Marines, Zombie Marines, Berserker Marines, Cultist Marines, Evil Cyborg Marines, Heavy Metal Guitar Marines but we can't have Lady Marines, it's a step too far and would make a mockery of the background. (Also, did I leave any marine flavours out?)

   
Made in it
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





Sesto San Giovanni, Italy

Yes you forgot the Ghost Rider Marines (Legion of the Damned) and the Dragon Marines (Black Dragon - a 13th founding) and the Freemason Marine (maybe that's debatable, but Dark Angel fit the bill in my opinion).

And I'm sure there's something else.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/22 10:56:08


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
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Da Boss wrote:
Some Bloke: I asked my wife about this. To your point 1: She says that the presentation of Space Marines, their hyper masculine nature, the absence of women from the artwork, broadcasts clearly to her that this game is Not For Her. She does not feel like she'd be particularly welcome in the space. Is this a major harm? No. But it is a minor one.

To point 2: The issue you're talking about here is reinforced and in some ways created by the point above - why is the space like that, why is it dominated by one group so much? Because other groups don't feel particularly welcomed or like it is For Them.

To point 3: I dunno man, I think a lot of people who get representation feel like it matters A LOT to them. When you're already represented really well in media and so on then it probably seems like it's not a big deal, but when you're not and then you finally get some representation, yeah, it does feel like a big deal. Can't you see how that would work?

As to female space marines, I really like the point that we have Werewolf Marines, Vampire Marines, Roman Marines, Cyborg Marines, Knight Marines, Mongol Biker Marines, Teacher Marines, Ninja Marines, Monster Hunter Marines, Paladin Marines, Super Marines, Edgy Marines, Bad Marines, Evil Batman Marines, Egyptian Terracotta Army Marines, Zombie Marines, Berserker Marines, Cultist Marines, Evil Cyborg Marines, Heavy Metal Guitar Marines but we can't have Lady Marines, it's a step too far and would make a mockery of the background. (Also, did I leave any marine flavours out?)



To point one, I would be interested to know whether the reason that the game comes across this way is because of the lack of female marines doing all the same things as regular marines, or because the things that marines are doing don't appeal to her? (this is meant genuinely and not as a "throwing it back at you", it's very hard to get that across in typing format!).

On point 2, I can kind of see how that might work, but I honestly don't think that space marines being masculine warriors and very popular is the reason why the people in GW are, most of the time, socially limited men who don't seem to know how to interact with a woman without her feeling incredibly awkward. The communities tend to grow through word of mouth and recommendations - my cousin introduced me to 40k, then my friends and I picked it up when I recommended it to them. I don't think any of us were influenced by the space marines being masculine heroes. None of us even played marines.

On point 3, I can understand what you're saying, but I feel the problem is deeper rooted than this. Someone said "We have put men on the podium!" and instead of asking "why the hell is there a podium anyway?" people are asking "why can't I be on the podium?" "you haven't got a woman on the podium, there should be one." "You haven't got a PoC on the podium, there should be one." and people have responded to being sorted into boxed by their birth and beliefs, not by saying "why the hell have you put me in this box" but by saying "their box has a window to let people look in, we want a window too!", and then defending their boxes viciously when they are threatened to be removed.

I feel like this is something of a "have your cake and eat it" thing, where people are saying "I refuse to let myself be represented by anyone who doesn't look like me!" and then saying i nthe same breath "Why do people make decisions about me based on what I look like?".

It's two sides of the _ist coin, IMHO. But I do understand - I just think that people being elated by being "included" in something which had no agenda to exclude them in the first place is a sad thing, not a happy one. The wall keeping women away from marines was put there by the people, because of the way they have been brought up to think, and not by the marines. The people in the shop thinking that because they are men they are boys toys, and the women outside thinking the same. The problem is the way people think - marines can be all male if people stop thinking that this is the problem and focus on the real problem.

But, GW ain't about to change society itself, and female marines will help, and won't hinder people changing their views if it ever does happen, so yeah, we should go for it.

Also a cracking summary of all the marine types there!

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 de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

So my wife's impression is just a general one: "Oh, this is a male space, if I try to get involved some guy is gonna come over and take over and boss me around and try to do everything for me".

This is based on her long experience of being a nerdy woman and an engineer and having guys assume she doesn't know anything and try to take over. Whether that was roleplaying games in Uni where she was given the healer and then the guys in the group tried to tell her what action to take every turn (a behaviour I see in my own D&D group which is 4 women and 2 men, it's only the men backseat gaming for the women, and actually mostly one guy in particular).

Or when she was at a party with a bunch of engineers and there was a scalextrics track. She'd always been interested in them but never had one as a kid, so she was queueing up excited to take her turn and as soon as she got there the guy running the thing tried to take the controller off her to show her "how to do it properly" and telling her what to do, which no, he absolutely hadn't been doing to anyone else (all male) who'd taken their turn.

Or in her workplace when people assume she's a PA or secretary rather than a project manager.

So she just assumes if she went into GW it'd be another male dominated space where she'd be treated as an outsider and patronized, even if it was well meaning she wouldn't be treated like the other gamers there, and she just doesn't engage because she's had enough of that crap.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/22 11:33:48


   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Argive wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Argive wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
As far as lore, the best way to handle is simply not to make a thing of it. Just include a few female head options on the sprue; they can put a couple bodies in slightly redesigned armor if they like, but its hardly necessary. It just doesn't need a fluff justification, it can just be.


Are you talking about an upgrade sprue?

In all honesty I think the brass at GW would 100% love this.
I'm sure they would: they already do it with Chapter upgrade kits.


Im not sure.. To me its like:

Nothing says inclusion and representation like charging for inclusion and representation...

I think his solution would likely backfire. Also it means more SM stuff..
Proof would have to be in the proverbial pudding though.

But - I just don't see GW stepping into this quagmire.
They were more than happy to create women Stormcast, who fill a largely similar role to Space Marines in AoS. I'll be honest, I could see them quite literally using Stormcast as a testing ground for Space Marines: take the risks on your newly created faction in your second largest game, and if they pay off, try it on the mainline faction.


Yeeaaaah..... after they destroyed the game called WHFB in order to make room for AOS/storm casts.

You can yell about how this is not political till you blue in the face but will significant amount of customers see it that way?
That doesn't mean the significant amount of customers are still right.
And what if they are right? Who gets to decide.

I don't see them taking a potentially huge risk with their brand or their top selling product range. Ideology and peoples wants aside...
And that's why I think all these posts about "just make someone else the poster boy" doesn't work - because GW won't jeopardise Space Marines. However, I see them using Stormcast as a testing bed for Space Marines - and considering that Stormcast having women is generally well received...

Generally well received? I thought everyone loved storm casts in AOS.. (not an AOS player no idea)
How are giving more stuff to other armies jeopardise SM? SM are still there unchanged in this paradigm. We just get more of other stuff on top.. It means perhaps eroding the hegemony of SM which would be awesome.

Spoiler:
Again, all I'm saying is that they're more than happy to change the Space Marine identity - and if it becomes economically expedient to add women (as so many companies are realising that the women's market is fairly lucrative for pop culture), you bet they'll do it.


Market citations needed.
I can give you plenty examples of stuff gunning for representation at the cost of all else because of pressure (bit like this thread is trying to do).

[url]https://www.oneangrygamer.net/get-woke-go-broke-the-master-list/
[/url]

There are a few things on that list I actually liked.
Dark tower being chief amongst them. Fragging love that film.

When companies get confused about what their purpose and mission statement and go off doing something else they tend to loose money.
This is an observation. Not an endorsement of anything.




It never fails to amaze me how people who generally call themselves "Rational Skeptics" turn around and support ridiculously, massively irrational reasons for the failure of something. The procedure for 'proving' that something 'got woke and went broke' is literally

1) Sort by: Failed Media Enterprise

2) Find: ANY EXAMPLE within failed media enterprise that can be construed as "Woke."

3) Proclaim that Media Enterprprise "Got woke" and therefore "Went Broke."

Annihilation is on that list - the reasoning for how it "Got Woke" was by having the principal characters be four women.

You know.

Like they were in the fething source novel. By NOT CHANGING THE CANON TO INCLUDE MORE DUDES, the film "got woke" and that is the reason for its failure.

Or another entry on that list: Mass Effect Andromeda.

Mass Effect 2, everyone's favorite Mass Effect game, massive commercial smash hit, included gay romance, numerous new quirky ethnic minority characters, hashtag girlboss strong female protagonist with hashtag girlboss strong female protagonist moments like walking in a room where a bad alien does a sexism at you so you pull out your gun and point it at him....but that game didn't "get woke" obviously, because it was a massive success. Nooooo, it was Mass Effect Andromeda that 'got woke" because....um....um... this one time, if you walk up to a character who's not in your squad, and is basically just a WoW quest giver person, she says something like "time to start my new life...as Samantha!" and the people who are just DESPERATE to declare that something went broke got woke decided that that meant the game was PANDERING TO THE TRANSGENDERS instead of the other possible interpretation of this lady just having assumed a new identity or something.

And the game certainly didn't fail because of the bad graphics, or the not as good writing, or the fact that they tried to take an open world exploration billions of quest markers and tasks and gak video game and slap it on to a franchise that's historically been about keeping track of dozens of named characters in a fairly intricate plot and maybe there's a reason successful open world games usually have main storylines like "you gotta get the four things" or "you gotta kill the guys to rescue your friends" because there's something about spending nineteen hours scanning gak and climbing up mountains by spamming the jump button that makes you forget who Astralogictor Arlamedes is and why she needs to Contrapulate the Mystic Va'arlon, and there's a reason that a tight linear shooter game that constantly reminds you what you're supposed to be doing works better with that kind of structure.

No, that couldn't be it! Ignore every time some thing included stuff that can be considered woke and succeeded, and ignore everything that failed that didn't get woke!

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






Spoiler:
 some bloke wrote:

On point 3, I can understand what you're saying, but I feel the problem is deeper rooted than this. Someone said "We have put men on the podium!" and instead of asking "why the hell is there a podium anyway?" people are asking "why can't I be on the podium?" "you haven't got a woman on the podium, there should be one." "You haven't got a PoC on the podium, there should be one." and people have responded to being sorted into boxed by their birth and beliefs, not by saying "why the hell have you put me in this box" but by saying "their box has a window to let people look in, we want a window too!", and then defending their boxes viciously when they are threatened to be removed.

In your analogy pro-female SM are saying "why is there a podium?", you just aren't reading what people are writing. Even if they were saying "why isn't X on the same podium", if everyone is on the same podium then there is no one thing being raised above the others.

Spoiler:
I feel like this is something of a "have your cake and eat it" thing, where people are saying "I refuse to let myself be represented by anyone who doesn't look like me!" and then saying i nthe same breath "Why do people make decisions about me based on what I look like?".

That saying doesn't apply here. It's actually this:
"My sex makes up roughly 50% of the entire human race, this product makes up roughly 50% of the entire range, there isn't a single option to represent me in this product, when I try to make my own I am harassed and threatened online and potentially in person."
Kinda seems like your saying that if people want to be represented in media they should also have to take abuse about themselves.
People aren't forcing you to make your SM representative of them, they just want the ability to make themselves into mini form, which BTW is one of the pillars of the hobby.

Spoiler:

It's two sides of the _ist coin, IMHO. But I do understand - I just think that people being elated by being "included" in something which had no agenda to exclude them in the first place is a sad thing, not a happy one. The wall keeping women away from marines was put there by the people, because of the way they have been brought up to think, and not by the marines. The people in the shop thinking that because they are men they are boys toys, and the women outside thinking the same. The problem is the way people think - marines can be all male if people stop thinking that this is the problem and focus on the real problem.

But, GW ain't about to change society itself, and female marines will help, and won't hinder people changing their views if it ever does happen, so yeah, we should go for it.

Also a cracking summary of all the marine types there!

Yes SM didn't put up any walls, they're inanimate products and can't actually do anything. GW put up the barriers because it helped their sales in the 1980s but as society has begun to move past the "X is for boys, Y is for girls" mentality for most products.
Yes this is a wider societal issue but at the same time why not try to solve what we know is a problem in this small slice of life?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Da Boss wrote:
So my wife's impression is just a general one: "Oh, this is a male space, if I try to get involved some guy is gonna come over and take over and boss me around and try to do everything for me".

This is based on her long experience of being a nerdy woman and an engineer and having guys assume she doesn't know anything and try to take over. Whether that was roleplaying games in Uni where she was given the healer and then the guys in the group tried to tell her what action to take every turn (a behaviour I see in my own D&D group which is 4 women and 2 men, it's only the men backseat gaming for the women, and actually mostly one guy in particular).

Or when she was at a party with a bunch of engineers and there was a scalextrics track. She'd always been interested in them but never had one as a kid, so she was queueing up excited to take her turn and as soon as she got there the guy running the thing tried to take the controller off her to show her "how to do it properly" and telling her what to do, which no, he absolutely hadn't been doing to anyone else (all male) who'd taken their turn.

Or in her workplace when people assume she's a PA or secretary rather than a project manager.

So she just assumes if she went into GW it'd be another male dominated space where she'd be treated as an outsider and patronized, even if it was well meaning she wouldn't be treated like the other gamers there, and she just doesn't engage because she's had enough of that crap.



Yeah, I have seen that sort of behaviour myself. It speaks to me of a far deeper rooted problem than whether marines have female heads or not. Does she assume that it's male dominated because of space marines, or because all the people in the shop are usually male?

The whole "male dominated space" thing is what needs to change to make the game open to women, not the heads of the models. By all means, change the heads of the models - I'm on board with it. But don't think it'll make much difference to the sorts of behaviours described above - that will take time and general no-being-a-donkeycave-ness attitudes. I expect that a really balanced shop owner will make a big difference, who doesn't patronize people or assume how little they know. If scalextrics kits were horse racing instead of cars, the guy running it would still assume he needed to show her how to run it properly. That's the problem.

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 de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

I think if there were prominent female characters doing cool stuff in the artwork it would make a difference to my wife. But the other factors would still be there, she'd just be slightly more interested.

   
Made in gb
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






Spoiler:
 Argive wrote:

Market citations needed.
I can give you plenty examples of stuff gunning for representation at the cost of all else because of pressure (bit like this thread is trying to do).

[url]https://www.oneangrygamer.net/get-woke-go-broke-the-master-list/
[/url]

There are a few things on that list I actually liked.
Dark tower being chief amongst them. Fragging love that film.

When companies get confused about what their purpose and mission statement and go off doing something else they tend to loose money.
This is an observation. Not an endorsement of anything.

There are awesome franchises and things where you have women as main protagonists. Like SOB in 40k. Why cant we elevate those and bring about organic change without burning everything to the ground? Bringing up AOS storm cast as an example is really not a good play.. it was built on the ashes of WHFB and a lot of people lost their game. I'd rather this not happen to 40k.

Ahahahahha. Oh wait you're serious. Let me laugh even harder. Hahahhhahaha.
First off that link doesn't even seem to work or lead to the article. Nice one.
And secondly, seriously? You're going to still go for "Go Woke, Go Broke"? OK bud. Weird that Marvel, DC, and a bunch of other companies are still pumping out content despite being "woke".
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Marvel makes about the GDP of a small 1st world country, PER movie. So yeah, go woke, become the single most successful franchise in film history.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Background
Go to: