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 us
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles





Deleted by poster to respect red moderation text posted during posting

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/22 23:52:55


 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 us
Dakka Veteran




Are we allowed to disagree with the premise that female Astartes would make the setting worse?
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles





Hecaton wrote:
Are we allowed to disagree with the premise that female Astartes would make the setting worse?


...As neutrally as I can put this, double check that - Are you sure that came out how you were intending? Because there seems to be no small amount of agreement that they'd do absolutely nothing to make the setting worse.

Fundamentally, though, you're allowed to disagree with anything you like, as long as you're willing to put up with people telling you you're wrong.

 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 us
Dakka Veteran




 CEO Kasen wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Are we allowed to disagree with the premise that female Astartes would make the setting worse?


...As neutrally as I can put this, double check that - Are you sure that came out how you were intending? Because there seems to be no small amount of agreement that they'd do absolutely nothing to make the setting worse.

Fundamentally, though, you're allowed to disagree with anything you like, as long as you're willing to put up with people telling you you're wrong.


I was asking the modding staff, who deleted a post on the topic with no explanation.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Hecaton wrote:
 CEO Kasen wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Are we allowed to disagree with the premise that female Astartes would make the setting worse?


...As neutrally as I can put this, double check that - Are you sure that came out how you were intending? Because there seems to be no small amount of agreement that they'd do absolutely nothing to make the setting worse.

Fundamentally, though, you're allowed to disagree with anything you like, as long as you're willing to put up with people telling you you're wrong.


I was asking the modding staff, who deleted a post on the topic with no explanation.


I believe that the posts were generally removed because they strayed into genuinely offensive or hateful discussions and not in keeping with what has been thus far a heated but generally civil discussion!

If you feel like you have something to add on the topic of adding female space marines and feel like you can offer justifications to your thoughts (IE offer reasoning for your opinions, not just the opinions) then this is the right thread to be discussing this in!

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
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 some bloke wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
 CEO Kasen wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Are we allowed to disagree with the premise that female Astartes would make the setting worse?


...As neutrally as I can put this, double check that - Are you sure that came out how you were intending? Because there seems to be no small amount of agreement that they'd do absolutely nothing to make the setting worse.

Fundamentally, though, you're allowed to disagree with anything you like, as long as you're willing to put up with people telling you you're wrong.


I was asking the modding staff, who deleted a post on the topic with no explanation.


I believe that the posts were generally removed because they strayed into genuinely offensive or hateful discussions and not in keeping with what has been thus far a heated but generally civil discussion!

If you feel like you have something to add on the topic of adding female space marines and feel like you can offer justifications to your thoughts (IE offer reasoning for your opinions, not just the opinions) then this is the right thread to be discussing this in!


Or just the opinions. I think what Kasen was mentioning is that it seemed like the commenter probably meant to say "would make the setting worse" or something to that effect, but ended up voicing it as an opinion that female astartes would be a generally value-neutral aesthetic distinction that would do nothing to the setting overall.

This is purely conjecture based on the fact that the follow up post seemed to be seeking oppression points from internet moderators enforcing basic TOS policies.

"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 us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Is there any value or way that we have missed, in which adding female astartes would IMPROVE the lore/game/hobby? Other than what has already been described...

For instance, would we go the "Rogue Trooper" route and say female astartes are more naturally gifted strategists and make better tactical decision makers, or more gifted snipers?

Or just make all things equal? I see possible negatives going down the ALL THINGS EQUAL route, because then there is no individualism.


EDIT: rephrased badly written sentence and grammar.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 11:55:39


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Is there any value or way that we have missed, in which adding female astartes would IMPROVE the lore/game/hobby? Other than what has already been described...

For instance, would we go the "Rogue Trooper" route and say female astartes are more naturally gifted strategists and make better tactical decision makers, or more gifted snipers?

Or just make all things equal? I see possible negatives going down the ALL THINGS EQUAL route, because then there is no individualism.


EDIT: rephrased badly written sentence and grammar.


Not really. I'm just being honest, I view it as a largely aesthetic, basically symbolic thing that just allows for more people to feel free to make their stuff look the way they want it to and takes the excuse of 'officialdom' away from gatekeepers that like to wield it as a cudgel.

GW "officially recognizing" female astartes only matters if you're the kind of person that values official recognition from a completely arbitrary and imaginary authority.

Also, saying 'female marines are better at this' does not institute individualism at all. It does the opposite, just, in a positive way. Saying 'well of course asians are better at math' to an individual who worked many more hours than his peers on his math assignments to maintain a perfect 4.0 GPA while happening to be of asian descent diminishes his individual accomplishment and the work he put in as deriving from some nebulous perceived biological factor.

If they want to create a female astartes named character who is the best at tactics or a good sniper, that would be individualism.

"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
Longtime Dakkanaut






FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Is there any value or way that we have missed, in which adding female astartes would IMPROVE the lore/game/hobby? Other than what has already been described...

For instance, would we go the "Rogue Trooper" route and say female astartes are more naturally gifted strategists and make better tactical decision makers, or more gifted snipers?

Or just make all things equal? I see possible negatives going down the ALL THINGS EQUAL route, because then there is no individualism.


EDIT: rephrased badly written sentence and grammar.


All things equal is the only way to do this properly.

For starters, flip the argument and see if it sounds problematic. If GW said "yes there are female astartes, but they are better at supporting roles whilst the male astartes are better as the shooting and chopping" then people will, rightly, ask why they are being assigned roles based on their genders.

Individualism comes from special characters. All the other units are, by definition, made up of run-of-the-mill troopers who are nameless and whose job it is to be murdered every game. You don't get individualism in the ranks of grunts in a wargame, you get it in the characters.

So by all means, have a character who is brilliant at tactical decisions or sniping, but leave their gender out of the decision making process! (I'll be honest, after the massive flare-up you gave me for discussing differences in men & women, I'm surprised you're suggesting that they treat men and women as if they are different!)

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




 the_scotsman wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Is there any value or way that we have missed, in which adding female astartes would IMPROVE the lore/game/hobby? Other than what has already been described...

For instance, would we go the "Rogue Trooper" route and say female astartes are more naturally gifted strategists and make better tactical decision makers, or more gifted snipers?

Or just make all things equal? I see possible negatives going down the ALL THINGS EQUAL route, because then there is no individualism.


EDIT: rephrased badly written sentence and grammar.


Not really. I'm just being honest, I view it as a largely aesthetic, basically symbolic thing that just allows for more people to feel free to make their stuff look the way they want it to and takes the excuse of 'officialdom' away from gatekeepers that like to wield it as a cudgel.

GW "officially recognizing" female astartes only matters if you're the kind of person that values official recognition from a completely arbitrary and imaginary authority.

Also, saying 'female marines are better at this' does not institute individualism at all. It does the opposite, just, in a positive way. Saying 'well of course asians are better at math' to an individual who worked many more hours than his peers on his math assignments to maintain a perfect 4.0 GPA while happening to be of asian descent diminishes his individual accomplishment and the work he put in as deriving from some nebulous perceived biological factor.

If they want to create a female astartes named character who is the best at tactics or a good sniper, that would be individualism.


Great points. So if we make these purely aesthetic changes, do we need to even consult the lore at all? I know I am doing a bad thing here and arguing out of both sides of my mouth now, but do we need new lore at all? Is there any rule against just putting female heads on space marine bodies, and calling it a day? Or is this generally about changing the lore?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


Great points. So if we make these purely aesthetic changes, do we need to even consult the lore at all? I know I am doing a bad thing here and arguing out of both sides of my mouth now, but do we need new lore at all? Is there any rule against just putting female heads on space marine bodies, and calling it a day? Or is this generally about changing the lore?


I don't think we would need a lore change for it, per se, but I think that people are familiar with malemarines and it would feel sloppy perhaps not to give some lore to back it up.

Just something like Sgt Smudge suggested (I think it was them?) about how when primaris marines were made they found it works for female children as well, so they now have twice the recruitment pool. It gives a nod to there having been a time period when there were only male marines, but smoothly says "but that's not how it is any more", i nthe same way as they added primaris marines rather than outright replacing the old marines models with newer, bigger ones. They could have said "they have always been this big" but instead they added and expanded the lore, and I think it's that much richer for it.

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
Utilizing Careful Highlighting




U.k

I think again stormcast are the model here. There’s no distinction at all between male and female roles. They both just exist and do the same thing.

I don’t think female armour should look any different from the current though.
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Is there any value or way that we have missed, in which adding female astartes would IMPROVE the lore/game/hobby? Other than what has already been described...

For instance, would we go the "Rogue Trooper" route and say female astartes are more naturally gifted strategists and make better tactical decision makers, or more gifted snipers?

Or just make all things equal? I see possible negatives going down the ALL THINGS EQUAL route, because then there is no individualism.


EDIT: rephrased badly written sentence and grammar.


Not really. I'm just being honest, I view it as a largely aesthetic, basically symbolic thing that just allows for more people to feel free to make their stuff look the way they want it to and takes the excuse of 'officialdom' away from gatekeepers that like to wield it as a cudgel.

GW "officially recognizing" female astartes only matters if you're the kind of person that values official recognition from a completely arbitrary and imaginary authority.

Also, saying 'female marines are better at this' does not institute individualism at all. It does the opposite, just, in a positive way. Saying 'well of course asians are better at math' to an individual who worked many more hours than his peers on his math assignments to maintain a perfect 4.0 GPA while happening to be of asian descent diminishes his individual accomplishment and the work he put in as deriving from some nebulous perceived biological factor.

If they want to create a female astartes named character who is the best at tactics or a good sniper, that would be individualism.


Great points. So if we make these purely aesthetic changes, do we need to even consult the lore at all? I know I am doing a bad thing here and arguing out of both sides of my mouth now, but do we need new lore at all? Is there any rule against just putting female heads on space marine bodies, and calling it a day? Or is this generally about changing the lore?


Well, no, GW wouldn't need to explicitly change lore, but if they started adding female heads to Space Marine sprues it would implicitly change lore (at least in some people's minds).

As has been argued back and forth, GW doesn't really play up the "only males" thing in the text these days, so they could continue just not doing that, add female heads, and let us figure it out on our own. Would love to see the 4 dozen threads on dakka with people posting pictures of their new sprues and being confused/angry about it.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 CEO Kasen wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Are we allowed to disagree with the premise that female Astartes would make the setting worse?


...As neutrally as I can put this, double check that - Are you sure that came out how you were intending? Because there seems to be no small amount of agreement that they'd do absolutely nothing to make the setting worse.

Fundamentally, though, you're allowed to disagree with anything you like, as long as you're willing to put up with people telling you you're wrong.


In what way would it make the setting better, though? I can understand the real-world reasons for wanting this - the customization/modelling side and the desire for more diversity overall, especially as Space Marines are the poster faction - but haven't really seen any improvements mentioned in terms of the setting itself, just basically "the lore is silly so should be changed" which is something that's very subjective.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Andykp wrote:
I think again stormcast are the model here. There’s no distinction at all between male and female roles. They both just exist and do the same thing.

I don’t think female armour should look any different from the current though.


Agreed on both counts. Stormcast are (IIRC) hand-made by some god or something, so it makes a bit more sense for them to have more tailored armor as opposed to astartes being 'there's the power armor, hop in.'

It's not like power armor isn't self-evidently extremely roomy given how teeny the heads of primaris marines look in relation to their suits. Even fairly obese astartes like Guy Fieri - sorry, Tor Garadon - are able to fit in and take the enemies of the emperor to flavortown.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
 CEO Kasen wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Are we allowed to disagree with the premise that female Astartes would make the setting worse?


...As neutrally as I can put this, double check that - Are you sure that came out how you were intending? Because there seems to be no small amount of agreement that they'd do absolutely nothing to make the setting worse.

Fundamentally, though, you're allowed to disagree with anything you like, as long as you're willing to put up with people telling you you're wrong.


In what way would it make the setting better, though? I can understand the real-world reasons for wanting this - the customization/modelling side and the desire for more diversity overall, especially as Space Marines are the poster faction - but haven't really seen any improvements mentioned in terms of the setting itself, just basically "the lore is silly so should be changed" which is something that's very subjective.


In terms of fluff, I would consider one of the biggest advancements in how interesting the astartes are has been thru the diverse range of personalities of the Primarchs in 30k as opposed to the blandly 'generically heroic' personalities displayed by most of the preceding 40k-era astartes characters.

Most of them just followed the formula of "Generic HQ Type, But The Generic HQ Type-Iest!" for their chapter, with a couple of exceptions that had an actual divergent personality like Lukas. It was like if every single member of the justice league was just a clone of superman with a different wardrobe and maybe a hair color swap.

I'm under no delusion that GW is interested in telling fewer stories about Astartes. It is in my interest to want canonical changes that make Astartes feel more like actual distinct, different individuals rather than identical, unrelatable generic aliens.

It's actually why, from the fluff I've read, I prefer the Stormcast to 40k-era astartes. They're still people. They've got distinct personalities and have lived a full, complete life prior to their storm...casting... in various locations and they've got the memories that go with that. They're essentially slaves to a godlike and distant authority figure, the same as Astartes, but they're more like the Primarchs in that they actually think about that and consider their situation as individuals.
[Thumb - maxresdefault.jpg]

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 13:11:30


"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 us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Funny thing about females in space marine armor, there are plenty of examples of it being done with zero modifications to the "roomyness".

Amberly in the Ciaphas Cain series wears power armor a lot. As do many female inquisitors in the comics, like that old one serving with GK, who tries to accuse the Captain of Heresy, and gets a Storm Bolter to the face for her accusation.

Actually that's it. The inquistion females in power armor, is all I can think of. Zero mods.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 the_scotsman wrote:

In terms of fluff, I would consider one of the biggest advancements in how interesting the astartes are has been thru the diverse range of personalities of the Primarchs in 30k as opposed to the blandly 'generically heroic' personalities displayed by most of the preceding 40k-era astartes characters.

Most of them just followed the formula of "Generic HQ Type, But The Generic HQ Type-Iest!" for their chapter, with a couple of exceptions that had an actual divergent personality like Lukas. It was like if every single member of the justice league was just a clone of superman with a different wardrobe and maybe a hair color swap.

I'm under no delusion that GW is interested in telling fewer stories about Astartes. It is in my interest to want canonical changes that make Astartes feel more like actual distinct, different individuals rather than identical, unrelatable generic aliens.

It's actually why, from the fluff I've read, I prefer the Stormcast to 40k-era astartes. They're still people. They've got distinct personalities and have lived a full, complete life prior to their storm...casting... in various locations and they've got the memories that go with that. They're essentially slaves to a godlike and distant authority figure, the same as Astartes, but they're more like the Primarchs in that they actually think about that and consider their situation as individuals.


Isn't this a problem quite irrelevant to this idea though? That sounds like something that is just to do with how they're written, If you don't like the personality type characters usually have with and want them to be a bit more unique, surely that's just something that could be addressed just by taking characters in a different direction regardless of there being female Space Marine or not? Female Space Marines would likely still be written along the same lines as other Space Marines anyway, I don't see why that would drastically change because of it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 13:34:19


 
   
Made in gb
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






Spoiler:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:

In what way would it make the setting better, though? I can understand the real-world reasons for wanting this - the customization/modelling side and the desire for more diversity overall, especially as Space Marines are the poster faction - but haven't really seen any improvements mentioned in terms of the setting itself, just basically "the lore is silly so should be changed" which is something that's very subjective.

Improvement is subjective and some people view getting rid of silly arbitrary piece of lore that causes real life problems as a way to improve the setting.
What people don't seem to be able to answer is why should that lore stay? GW hasn't been featuring it in primary publication (Codexes), Space Marines as a faction don't follow religious or cultural rules that state Astartes have to be created from male, and its used as a instrument of harm in the community. So what purpose does it actually serve?
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Mentlegen324 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:

In terms of fluff, I would consider one of the biggest advancements in how interesting the astartes are has been thru the diverse range of personalities of the Primarchs in 30k as opposed to the blandly 'generically heroic' personalities displayed by most of the preceding 40k-era astartes characters.

Most of them just followed the formula of "Generic HQ Type, But The Generic HQ Type-Iest!" for their chapter, with a couple of exceptions that had an actual divergent personality like Lukas. It was like if every single member of the justice league was just a clone of superman with a different wardrobe and maybe a hair color swap.

I'm under no delusion that GW is interested in telling fewer stories about Astartes. It is in my interest to want canonical changes that make Astartes feel more like actual distinct, different individuals rather than identical, unrelatable generic aliens.

It's actually why, from the fluff I've read, I prefer the Stormcast to 40k-era astartes. They're still people. They've got distinct personalities and have lived a full, complete life prior to their storm...casting... in various locations and they've got the memories that go with that. They're essentially slaves to a godlike and distant authority figure, the same as Astartes, but they're more like the Primarchs in that they actually think about that and consider their situation as individuals.


Isn't this a problem quite irrelevant to this idea though? That sounds like something that is just to do with how they're written, If you don't like the personality type characters usually have with and want them to be a bit more unique, surely that's just something that could be addressed just by taking characters in a different direction regardless of there being female Space Marine or not? Female Space Marines would likely still be written along the same lines as other Space Marines anyway, I don't see why that would drastically change because of it.


Just adds a different type of person for GW's writers to work with. Sure, they could make a female character completely identical to a male character, but the last time they added a suite of characters with a variety of different backgrounds, motivations, etc it resulted in a better result narratively than most of the preceding content did.

It isn't much, but then again, you're literally giving nothing up by adding them into a kit that was already being put out.

What does adding any space marine head with a different appearance add to the game? What is actually gained by "the setting' by having any space marine head bit besides just the exact same helmet exactly duplicated?

"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
Executing Exarch






If you are talking about representation, do women represent any particular values they would need/want represented? Or is this a purely asthetics?


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 14:23:37


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
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




That is why I asked. If this is purely asthetic, we can just skip the lore entirely, as it has no bearing on the reality that women can be space marines. If it's a lore argument, then we may want to give them some form of difference, otherwise the lore breaks down.

Frankly, I'm entirely on side gimme those awesome models of female reavers, damn the lore. The lore just gets in the way of having fun.
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Argive wrote: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.
Proof would have to be in the pudding, yes. So perhaps the whole "but I'd have to pay extra!!" is an entirely fabricated concern, and not guaranteed to be a problem.

As I've said - GW have been happy to make upgrade sprues without forcibly including them into kits. I see no reason this would have to be different.

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.
And? How is this related to the inclusion of women?

I'm also fairly sure they didn't just nuke WHFB just for Stormcast - most likely, it was to break away from a setting that was perhaps a little too stagnant and creatively stifling - because they've certainly been flexing their creative muscles with AoS.

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 think it's pretty simple, really - can anyone tell me why women existing is political? How someone's very life is somehow a political topic? If so, isn't everyone's life political?

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)
Well, I don't see thread after thread in AoS topics about how women Stormcast ruins the setting.
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.
Exactly - eroding the hegemony of Space Marines.

Now, don't take that to mean that I *want* Space Marines to have a hegemony. I'm simply saying that GW do, and by making other factions the posterboys, they're devaluing their existing cash cow by creating competition.

If GW want to keep Space Marines as iconic as they are, they're better off leaving them as the poster boys, and not potentially causing competition from their own IP.

Again, not defending GW's decisions to do so, but simply being realistic about it.

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.
The RPG scene, Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition especially.

I also point towards the clothing industry, which was more tailored (ha!) towards men for the longest time. Similarly, the video game market is diversifying it's reach to more than it's previous demographics, and the industry is only growing.
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.
A company's purpose, primarily, is nearly always profit. Not "we don't pander to women here".

Companies lose profit when they make certain business decisions that hurt their ability to deliver on the service/product they sell.

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?
Sisters aren't protagonists in 40k though, not in the broader sense. Sisters can be protagonists in their own books, sure, but they're not the "protagonist" faction plastered at the face of the company. Guess who are?

Oh yeah - the Space Marines.

Plus, why is including women Space Marines "burning everything to the ground"? Why the extreme language?
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.
Again, why would including women Space Marines be even close to equivalent to the setting shift that was WHFB/AoS? Rather an extreme reaction, don't you think?

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.
You're absolutely right. I fail to see what that has to do with including women Space Marines though. Would you care to elaborate on that? Because I fail to understand why you'd mention how Space Marines are popular because they're "doing something right" when my point is about how they're excluding women.

Is excluding women the "something right" in this equation? Why else was it mentioned?
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?
Because the man is deciding he doesn't want to play *Space Marines*, but at least has the option for that representation. A woman doesn't even have the option of a woman getting those fun toys.
I don't want to play Warhammer space marine. Do you ?
I mean, I play every Imperial faction. So, I don't exactly fit your example.

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.
First, I don't dislike Sisters of Battle. I collect an army of them, for god's sake.
But your comment is exactly what I mean - you imply that Sisters of Battle are the "woman" faction. By my saying that I want women Space Marines, you take that as an attack on the Designated Woman Faction - when in reality, I'm simply saying that Sisters of Battle aren't equal to what Space Marines offer, from both a creative space, and a model range one too.

You say "we should have dragon SOB, spikey SOB, wolfy SOB" - but that's precisely the issue! The actual faction design of what Sisters of Battle are doesn't fit that kind of design. Sisters of Battle have a very strong faction design and culture - the Catholic nun trope, taken to the extreme, is integral to their design and aesthetic. By having "dragon SOB, spikey SOB wolfy SOB", you're actively compromising an *explicit* feature of their design. If you make wolfy SOB, you're needing to compromise on that very detailed Catholic nun design, and by doing so, you're harming their factional identity.

The same can't be said of Space Marines, whose faction design is centred on customisation and player freedoms. Their armour is neutral and blank for the most part, they're supplied with easy to convert upgrade sprues and sculpts. There is a wealth of different cultures and traditions reflected in the myriad Chapters, and GW are happy to encourage people to expand in weird and wacky ways. Space Marines are defined by their easy flavouring and ability to be defined as "spikey Marines, wolfy Marines, dragon Marines, Roman Marines, edgy Marines, etc etc" - Sisters aren't.

So either you're calling to massively overhaul the design of Sisters of Battle (not very lore friendly of you?), or we simply ignore 13 words of non-core lore, and add women Space Marines. I think one of these is much easier than the other.

Rehashing SM with new heads and potentially boob plate is just lame IMO
No-one called for boobplate, for a start. But why is it lame? What's the problem?
And you can call it lame, but it's no different than the upgrade sprue kits for the different Chapters, or GW "rehashing" Guardsmen with new heads.

some bloke wrote: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".
It's not the little pieces of plastic that's the problem. It's the people who use those little pieces of plastic to assert that this is a boys only space, and why, for whatever reason, they react so harshly when someone changes the male piece of plastic for a female piece. Ultimately, it comes down to *people* being the problem, but using the problematic elements in the representation department to justify and reinforce their views.

By removing those problematic elements and flipping them on their head, you're delegitimising their exclusionary views, and instead promoting inclusionary ones.

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.
Because by making those steps towards inclusion and visibly making clear that "we're trying to avoid the boys-only-club style", hopefully we'd see a change in the demographics of those stores. If women are included in the front and centre lineup of Space Marines, that makes women less of an "Othered" group, like they kind of are with Sisters of Battle, and more of a "we're here, we exist, this is normal" sort of thing.

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.
The thing is, it's GW who created this "gender matters, for some reason" idea when they said that women couldn't be Space Marines.

There was absolutely no reason why women couldn't have been Space Marines in the first place, but arbitrarily, GW did. They brought gender in the equation - by asking for *fair representation*, I'm trying to remove it.

You can say as much as you like how you don't understand the effects of representation, and how you don't see how it has a positive impact on people, but all I can say is that there's many many many people who do feel positive effects from representation, and I think their feelings are entirely valid. I don't see representation as "putting people in boxes" or "reducing them to *insert category here*" - I, and others like me, see it as affirming and normalising our existence in media. Instead of having to assume that people like me exist, I can see it explicitly. Some people don't want to forget the categories and labels they define their own existence with, and some people want to celebrate those things - and why are they wrong to do so? Not all boxes are bad - so long as people aren't being forced into them if they don't want to be. I'm proud of the labels I live by - and having those labels which, for me, have taken many years to come to terms with erased because "you don't need labels, if you label yourself you're inadvertently being -ist" is honestly a little devaluing, saying that how I have identified myself isn't important and that my own self-perception is worthless.

If you don't use labels to identify yourself, that's great, it really is - but some people find strength in labels and identities, and that's great too.

Including women Space Marines doesn't force women into a box - just as including women in general doesn't force women into a box.

Mentlegen324 wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
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?)


The difference is those are all external theming placed ontop of the core aspects of a Space Marine, whereas this would be something that's a change to those core aspects of the Space Marines themselves.
The core aspect which isn't mentioned in the Codexes?

Strange that such a core, key feature would be so neglected like that - almost like it's not a core feature?

Yet again, I would also ask why is it so important that "we exclude women" is a core feature of the Space Marines? Don't Custodes do that too? Why does that need to be a thing for the Space Marines specifically?

Mentlegen324 wrote: It isn't just about that specific piece of lore in the first place, they're themed like that way even without that - you can't really say that they haven't been depicted and shown as an all-male brotherhood for years and years, otherwise there would be little point to this topic.
In the same way that Guardsmen were depicted as basically all-male? T'au? Genestealer Cults?

In terms of what we're "shown", most factions are overwhelming male, and have been for years and years. Does that mean they all need to be all-male too, because they're "themed like that way", even without "specific pieces of lore"?
Just because that particular lore originated from a non-codex book and then wasn't in a codex doesn't they haven't been portrayed like that for the past 2 decades
But that's not the point being raised here. The point being raised is that you claimed it's a "core aspect". If something's a "core aspect", I would expect to see it in the core Codexes for that faction, because that's where the most important stuff goes - you know, the things that outline the basic **core** features to the player, the stuff that you'd expect everyone who had an interest in that faction to know.

Or are we saying that "core aspects" of factions should be scattered wildly over out-of-print books and exclusive documents? That sounds like a strange way to inform your player base as to the seemingly integral and core aspects of your factions.

Can you think of any other examples of "core aspects" of factions which aren't mentioned at all in their Codexes?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:Is there any value or way that we have missed, in which adding female astartes would IMPROVE the lore/game/hobby? Other than what has already been described...

For instance, would we go the "Rogue Trooper" route and say female astartes are more naturally gifted strategists and make better tactical decision makers, or more gifted snipers?

Or just make all things equal? I see possible negatives going down the ALL THINGS EQUAL route, because then there is no individualism.
As other users have said, I definitely don't want to go down the "women Space Marines are better at XYZ" at all. Purely equal treatment, as far as I'm concerned, is the proper way to go here, with that largely being my reasoning behind having women Astartes in the first place.
If we're after individualism, it certainly shouldn't be delineated in terms of gender.

the_scotsman wrote:Not really. I'm just being honest, I view it as a largely aesthetic, basically symbolic thing that just allows for more people to feel free to make their stuff look the way they want it to and takes the excuse of 'officialdom' away from gatekeepers that like to wield it as a cudgel.

GW "officially recognizing" female astartes only matters if you're the kind of person that values official recognition from a completely arbitrary and imaginary authority.

Also, saying 'female marines are better at this' does not institute individualism at all. It does the opposite, just, in a positive way. Saying 'well of course asians are better at math' to an individual who worked many more hours than his peers on his math assignments to maintain a perfect 4.0 GPA while happening to be of asian descent diminishes his individual accomplishment and the work he put in as deriving from some nebulous perceived biological factor.

If they want to create a female astartes named character who is the best at tactics or a good sniper, that would be individualism.
All agreed with. GW making women Astartes is, more than anything else, simply stating "yes, women are welcome here, and screw all of you who kick up a fuss when someone walks in with women Space Marines". It's removing the ammunition from the loaded gun, so to speak, and removing any sense of legitimacy from those who use the lore as, how the_scotsman put it, a cudgel.

And also agreed on the issue of individualism. If we're after individual characters/personalities, it certainly shouldn't be tied to gender, and I'd almost prefer to avoid the trope of the first women Space Marine character being a good tactician or sniper, purely to avoid that trope. If I were tasked with making a women Space Marine special character, I'd be making a Space Wolves valkyrie styled character, and make her an absolute melee machine.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:Great points. So if we make these purely aesthetic changes, do we need to even consult the lore at all? I know I am doing a bad thing here and arguing out of both sides of my mouth now, but do we need new lore at all? Is there any rule against just putting female heads on space marine bodies, and calling it a day? Or is this generally about changing the lore?
The reason for changing the lore is twofold:
1. It legitimises and recognises that women Astartes exist, and aren't just someone's headcanon. That seal of officialdom doesn't matter to some people, but at least giving it that is a sense of legitimacy and influence, so that people who would normally say "but it's not canon, so I don't care" don't have that defence.

2. There wasn't ever really a reason to exclude women in the first place. By changing it to a more inclusive state, it sets a tone of "hey, we know we done goofed, but we recognise that and have had changes moving away from that".

some bloke wrote:Just something like Sgt Smudge suggested (I think it was them?) about how when primaris marines were made they found it works for female children as well, so they now have twice the recruitment pool. It gives a nod to there having been a time period when there were only male marines, but smoothly says "but that's not how it is any more", i nthe same way as they added primaris marines rather than outright replacing the old marines models with newer, bigger ones. They could have said "they have always been this big" but instead they added and expanded the lore, and I think it's that much richer for it.
I believe I may have suggested something like that, yeah. It doesn't quite fix my issues with the core idea that women couldn't be Space Marines in the first place, because of an arbitrary reason (and also bars women Space Marines from the whole 30k scene), but if we had to keep that for whatever reason, the "Cawl found a way to implant women recruits" option is viable.

Mentlegen324 wrote:In what way would it make the setting better, though? I can understand the real-world reasons for wanting this - the customization/modelling side and the desire for more diversity overall, especially as Space Marines are the poster faction - but haven't really seen any improvements mentioned in terms of the setting itself, just basically "the lore is silly so should be changed" which is something that's very subjective.
My thoughts:
1. It was entirely arbitrary in the first place, especially with the in-setting reasoning - it had no reason to be the way it was, and was just as logical as "Space Marines only recruit from people with a cleft in their chin".
2. It no longer matches the design ethos of what Space Marines are, that of them being incredibly diverse and customisable, with a vast range of designs and cultural inspiration.
3. By having mixed-gender recruits, it further emphasises the dehumanising and ruthless nature of the Imperial war machine - gender doesn't matter, if you're a suitable recruit, you'll be stripped of your humanity and built up for a life of unending war.
4. The setting is ultimately less important than real people in the real world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mentlegen324 wrote:Isn't this a problem quite irrelevant to this idea though? That sounds like something that is just to do with how they're written, If you don't like the personality type characters usually have with and want them to be a bit more unique, surely that's just something that could be addressed just by taking characters in a different direction regardless of there being female Space Marine or not? Female Space Marines would likely still be written along the same lines as other Space Marines anyway, I don't see why that would drastically change because of it.
Yes, without overhauling how Space Marines are written overall (and that's something that needs changing too, just on a quality of writing level), women Space Marines would be written exactly the same as male Space Marines.

I don't see why that is a problem inherently.

People aren't asking for women Space Marines because they'll be more rounded characters naturally, or even much different in personality. Simply that they offer an opportunity to explore the dehumanising nature of Space Marines through a female lens, and further embody the dehumanising nature of the Imperium moreover. People are asking for women Space Marines because there's no reason there shouldn't be in the first place, and that representation in the flagship faction is important to them.

Argive wrote:If you are talking about representation, do women represent any particular values they would need/want represented? Or is this a purely asthetics?
I don't exactly believe that there are "particular values" that women have a monopoly on. Representation isn't about representing a specific value held by those being represented - it's about simply visibility and normalisation.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 14:44:28



They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I, and others like me, see it as affirming and normalising our existence in media. Instead of having to assume that people like me exist, I can see it explicitly.


This made me get it. Sorry that it took me so long! I still feel like people are too quick to label themselves and restrict themselves to things, but I get it.

I believe I may have suggested something like that, yeah. It doesn't quite fix my issues with the core idea that women couldn't be Space Marines in the first place, because of an arbitrary reason (and also bars women Space Marines from the whole 30k scene), but if we had to keep that for whatever reason, the "Cawl found a way to implant women recruits" option is viable.


This is like a (heavily watered down) version of when people were pulling down statues of people who did great things but also did some bad things (or things like "but their ancestors had slaves" as if that has any bearing on their character). You shouldn't erase the past, even if it was a bad place, otherwise people won't be able to learn from it. We should remember that marines were limited to males only, and add onto the story to say that this is no longer a problem thanks to >insert 13 words of arbitrary story here<. The event "Women have gained the vote" would have been seriously belittled if everyone said "well, of course they always could vote, they just never did...".

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
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 some bloke wrote:
I, and others like me, see it as affirming and normalising our existence in media. Instead of having to assume that people like me exist, I can see it explicitly.


This made me get it. Sorry that it took me so long! I still feel like people are too quick to label themselves and restrict themselves to things, but I get it.

I believe I may have suggested something like that, yeah. It doesn't quite fix my issues with the core idea that women couldn't be Space Marines in the first place, because of an arbitrary reason (and also bars women Space Marines from the whole 30k scene), but if we had to keep that for whatever reason, the "Cawl found a way to implant women recruits" option is viable.


This is like a (heavily watered down) version of when people were pulling down statues of people who did great things but also did some bad things (or things like "but their ancestors had slaves" as if that has any bearing on their character). You shouldn't erase the past, even if it was a bad place, otherwise people won't be able to learn from it. We should remember that marines were limited to males only, and add onto the story to say that this is no longer a problem thanks to >insert 13 words of arbitrary story here<. The event "Women have gained the vote" would have been seriously belittled if everyone said "well, of course they always could vote, they just never did...".


I think you might be slightly straw-manning the arguments of people in favor of removing statues of historical personalities in terms of the 'slaves' question - at least, around here, it's more likely if someone wants to rename a building or remove a statue it's more like 'this is named after this dude because of the slave market he owned, right here, in this location, and that's why it was constructed and named after him.' You also don't usually learn bad things about people by looking at statues, at least my general assumption upon seeing a statue is, by default 'gosh, must have been a good/heroic/in some way inspirational dude or group of people this statue is representing.'

but anyway, that definitely strays into political territory real fast.

I'm uncertain if you've noticed though, but the thing about 40k's history is um, it's all just made up. And a lot of it, fairly recently. After all, prior to 30k officially existing and 40k forgetting that it is a satirical work, the fact that the primarchs and the emperor had lore like "AND THEY WERE FIFTEEN FEET TALL!" and "and the primarch of the blood angels was named haemoglobin blooderson angelius, he was a gigantic angel with literal angel wings who flew around on them" were probably, and I'm not a GW lore designer here but I'm going to go out on a limb and say probably, originally intended as an indication that the history of the setting itself was something of an unreliable narrator. You, the reader, were supposed to read those lore details and think "hmm, i've also read about societies like the one presented here in 40k and how their leaders are mystical godmen who never take dumps and who score perfect 18s the first time they try golf, I think this lore snippet is probably intended to convey that the history of this setting is somewhat colorfully embellished for propaganda purposes."

But then 30k happened and people at GW said 'nope, that's literally all true, in the middle of a massive, 10000 year dark age, humanity kept basically exactly perfect historical records just like we have basically exactly perfect historical records of things that happened 100 years ago.'


"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 us
Dakka Veteran




 the_scotsman wrote:
 some bloke wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
 CEO Kasen wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Are we allowed to disagree with the premise that female Astartes would make the setting worse?


...As neutrally as I can put this, double check that - Are you sure that came out how you were intending? Because there seems to be no small amount of agreement that they'd do absolutely nothing to make the setting worse.

Fundamentally, though, you're allowed to disagree with anything you like, as long as you're willing to put up with people telling you you're wrong.


I was asking the modding staff, who deleted a post on the topic with no explanation.


I believe that the posts were generally removed because they strayed into genuinely offensive or hateful discussions and not in keeping with what has been thus far a heated but generally civil discussion!

If you feel like you have something to add on the topic of adding female space marines and feel like you can offer justifications to your thoughts (IE offer reasoning for your opinions, not just the opinions) then this is the right thread to be discussing this in!


Or just the opinions. I think what Kasen was mentioning is that it seemed like the commenter probably meant to say "would make the setting worse" or something to that effect, but ended up voicing it as an opinion that female astartes would be a generally value-neutral aesthetic distinction that would do nothing to the setting overall.

This is purely conjecture based on the fact that the follow up post seemed to be seeking oppression points from internet moderators enforcing basic TOS policies.


Nah, not at all.

To be frank, also, the idea that there should he female Astartes seems to be overwhelmingly pushed by men who claim to speak on behalf of women, not women themselves, which is of course ironic.

The setting is supposed to be dystopian. The more fethed up it is the better.
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 some bloke wrote:
I, and others like me, see it as affirming and normalising our existence in media. Instead of having to assume that people like me exist, I can see it explicitly.


This made me get it. Sorry that it took me so long! I still feel like people are too quick to label themselves and restrict themselves to things, but I get it.
I'm thankful that you understand that now at least - my apologies if I could have made it clearer earlier.

I believe I may have suggested something like that, yeah. It doesn't quite fix my issues with the core idea that women couldn't be Space Marines in the first place, because of an arbitrary reason (and also bars women Space Marines from the whole 30k scene), but if we had to keep that for whatever reason, the "Cawl found a way to implant women recruits" option is viable.


This is like a (heavily watered down) version of when people were pulling down statues of people who did great things but also did some bad things (or things like "but their ancestors had slaves" as if that has any bearing on their character). You shouldn't erase the past, even if it was a bad place, otherwise people won't be able to learn from it. We should remember that marines were limited to males only, and add onto the story to say that this is no longer a problem thanks to >insert 13 words of arbitrary story here<. The event "Women have gained the vote" would have been seriously belittled if everyone said "well, of course they always could vote, they just never did...".
I think the difference here is that we're talking about made-up lore here, and not real world atrocities/injustices, like your "women could always vote" example. I have no objection to GW, say, reposting that old "Creation of a Space Marine" thing as a "look how far we've come, we used to say that Space Marines couldn't be women! How silly we were!", but in terms of in-setting stuff, there's no reason that there even needs to be a legacy of having no women Space Marines.

After all, we don't keep around old lore in setting about how Leman Russ just used to be a regular army commander, and not a Primarch - why should this be any different?

I'll also say as well, if I may get slightly close to the real world, statues are rarely used to commemorate bad people for bad deeds. Statues primarily exist to celebrate heroes or people who exemplified "good" traits of the society they were erected in - they're a sign of commemoration and of virtue first and foremost. We don't create statues of indisputable villains like Hitler so that we remember what they did, do we?

I'll leave that issue at that, for worries of getting off topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote:
The setting is supposed to be dystopian. The more fethed up it is the better.
So why are Guardsmen mixed gender then?

I've never quite gotten this point. The Imperium *isn't* sexist. It's actually incredibly gender-neutral. Civilians aren't, for the most part, segregated by gender. Anyone can join the Imperial Guard. The High Lords include many ladies in their number. The in-setting reason for no women Space Marines, according to the (non-core) Creation of a Space Marine article, is nothing to do with any intention exclusion, but is apparently a made-up biological flaw.

But if we *are* saying that the Imperium is sexist and horrible (by the way, dystopian doesn't mean sexist - you can have dystopian settings that are gender-neutral), and that actually Space Marines exclude women because they're sexist, and women aren't deemed fit to serve - why do they serve in the Imperial Guard?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 15:17:43



They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






The 30k Black Books are written close to the events they portray. When it comes down to it people even in m.33 aren't 100% sure what happened and the "modern" Imperium did all it could to relegate the Heresy to legend and myth. Its sort of like how the Jedi are shown pre-Order 66 vs how they are talked about post-Order 66.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I think the thing is that the lore doesn't have to be retconned for this to be included, and I personally dislike it when the lore is changed in a "actually c'tan were beaten by the necrons and their old lore never happened" sort of way. I'd have been much happier if they had just said, for example, that more necron stuff awoke and that included some c'tan which were defeated, and that the nightbringer and deceiver held no feelings for them so don't care that they are using them as weapons of war. That would have sat better with me than just rewriting the whole thing.

And whilst it is all made up, it's always better to keep what you can than keep changing things around, it leaves people like me feeling a bit lost. Maybe that's why Orks appeals to me so much, because Ghazzie isn't being retconned all the time, he genuinely is getting bigger and badder every time. No-one's going around changing it so ghazzie was always this big.


My comment on statues was from people who were defacing statues because the person's grandparents had been involved in the slave trade, as if that held any sway over what the person did. Destroying history is universally worse than just remembering it and moving on. I'd prefer to see the same treatment of 40k lore, rather than having to tell all the people who have played for years that the lore they know is wrong, it's better to tell them it's out of date. It makes it seem like a colossal waste of time to have read enough of it to remember it, only to have it changed retrospectively.

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
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






Spoiler:
Hecaton wrote:


Nah, not at all.

To be frank, also, the idea that there should he female Astartes seems to be overwhelmingly pushed by men who claim to speak on behalf of women, not women themselves, which is of course ironic.

The setting is supposed to be dystopian. The more fethed up it is the better.

Up to you if you want to ignore the specific examples that have been given in this thread chief.
And considering some of the rhetoric seen in this thread and the internet in general, why would someone not choose anonymity for safety?
As for your last point:
1 - Language.
2 - When the setting is used to cause real harm to real people then it isn't a good setting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
 some bloke wrote:

My comment on statues was from people who were defacing statues because the person's grandparents had been involved in the slave trade, as if that held any sway over what the person did. Destroying history is universally worse than just remembering it and moving on. I'd prefer to see the same treatment of 40k lore, rather than having to tell all the people who have played for years that the lore they know is wrong, it's better to tell them it's out of date. It makes it seem like a colossal waste of time to have read enough of it to remember it, only to have it changed retrospectively.

I don't think you should have included it at all because it has no bearing on this discussion and is a very sensitive issue that people have a multitude of reasons for supporting/opposing.
I will say that there is a huge difference in a private company removing or replacing things within their creation, and a public monument dedicated to an individual who thought it was OK to own another person being removed from its pedestal.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/23 15:31:30


 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




I'm going to need you to back up "the idea that there should he female Astartes seems to be overwhelmingly pushed by men who claim to speak on behalf of women, not women themselves, which is of course ironic."

Speaking strictly for myself, I don't claim to speak on behalf of "women" or any gender. What I and others, claim to speak for, is a setting of inclusivity and non-bias. Which is also firmly backed by, you guessed it, GW.

I think you may notice at times people like Smudge, Gert, Scotsman, and others go out of their way to speak in a genderless or claimless style. They advocate for change, but they don't demand it or state that it is mandatory.

They state they would like to see more inclusivity in the hobby, but they don't say we only want WOMYN to play.

Above all they have sought to enlighten, educate, and illustrate their points by example and intelligence.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Background
Go to: