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
Dakka Veteran




 JNAProductions wrote:
No one in the Imperium advances tech. Not one example to the contrary. Certainly they didn’t recently gain hover tanks and new Astartes. Nope, that’d be silly. /s


None of them are scientists is what I said. And remember - Primaris are from 30k, hover tanks were presumably recovered/adapted schematics. There's a difference between using technology and using the scientific method.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Evidence, please?


The burden of proof rests on you. I've seen a lot of "Oh, the precious women are under attack and the only way to save them is for GW to make my fantasy army of beautiful ladyknights!"

But no evidence of that.

It's very plausible that people who are being gakky and abusive don't need a justification of the context of a model line to be gakky and abusive.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/12 00:10:08


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Hecaton wrote:
Andykp wrote:
And to those saying the old fluff isn’t contradicted so still stands, can we agree that it’s old, 32 years old. Old by GWs own admission. Not in print, no, also true. Contradicted, no it isn’t. But that is entirely our point. It needs to be to stop people clinging to it as an excuse to allow abuse and exclusion. THATS the point of the thread. Change that but if lore, contradict it, either explicitly or just by including women. The fact it has been printed only in WD and WD anthologies and only about 4 times over 32 years is a sign it’s not the cement that holds the setting together. The fact it’s never made it into any codex section on making a marine is a sign that GW aren’t hanging their hat on it.
Nobody's using it for an excuse for abuse and exclusion.
Except they are - by the very virtue of "no women Astartes allowed".

Again, you're going back to the denial of people having problems. How can we trust that you have the interest of protecting victims when you so frequently ignore them?

I've also noticed that the pro-FSM side is overwhelmingly on the side of wanting an unironically heroic Imperium
Really? Have you?

Where?

Having equal and fair gender representation isn't "heroic". It's goddamn normal.
A misconception of the Imperium as unironically heroic (aided and abetted by GW trying to portray a fascist, genocidal regime as heroic for $$$) is the first part of your problem.
I notice a lot, and this has been a pervasive aspect of your posts, that you very frequently try and bring up how awful the Imperium is, and both paint yourself as this arch-anti-Imperial saint opposed to all the awful things it does (as well as blatantly exaggerate the actual evils of the Imperium) and also paint those who want to add things to the Imperium as fascist sympathisers.

It's a pretty underhanded, but thankfully blatant, attempt at legitimising your own position. Thankfully, we all can see that you're doing it, and how utterly misrepresentative you're being.

Wanting the Imperium to have fair gender representation isn't "supporting" the Imperium any more so than playing an Imperial faction makes you a sympathiser of fascist genocidal regimes.


They/them

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 JNAProductions wrote:
When has Smudge, I, or anyone else advocating for inclusion said “The imperium is good!”

If I recall correctly, we’ve said they’re not sexist. Not sexist is a positive thing-but that hardly makes them good.


It seems to be a consistent theme. Especially with those who like female marines - them being morally beyond reproach due to having female genitalia is part of the appeal.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

You appear to have misread what I said.

I didn’t say it would stop them-not on its own, certainly. But it would make it harder for them to claim defenses, like “the lore says so” because, in this hypothetical, it doesn’t. They’d have to argue from their own merits-and sexist merits lack. It’d make it easier to call them out, and give them less to work with.

Again-if it helps one in a thousand non-male gamers… why not? There’s no real cost to it-GW is going to release more Marine stuff anyway, it’ll just now have some lady heads too.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Hecaton wrote:Where is it updated to say that female Astartes are possible?
Where is it updated to say they aren't? In a dusty document that is rarely posted per decade, and the last time it was, it explicitly said that it included many changes that weren't up to date?

All I'm saying is that it ain't in any Codex I've read. You think that such a key and critical piece of lore would be put in a Codex.

JNAProductions wrote:When has Smudge, I, or anyone else advocating for inclusion said “The imperium is good!”

If I recall correctly, we’ve said they’re not sexist. Not sexist is a positive thing-but that hardly makes them good.
We haven't. I don't think anyone in this thread has.

I will say, for the record of anyone who still perhaps giving Hecaton a shred of credit, they'd used this argument on me before in a previous discussion when I was defending the inclusion of Primaris Marines and Guilliman as valid continuations of the 40k storyline. Now, I don't like to dreg up stuff from other threads, but to my recollection, Hecaton claimed that anyone supporting Primaris, Guilliman, or the advancement of the Imperium into the Era Indomitus was, like they're saying right now, saying the Imperium was "good" and that they were supporting a "fascist, genocidal regime" - because they used that argument on me, and it was just as ridiculous and pathetic as it is now.

Basically, Hecaton sees any kind of attention to the Imperium, Space Marines in particular, as fascist sympathies, and anyone who supports that attention as being a fascist sympathiser.

Just so you know who you're all dealing with.


They/them

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 JNAProductions wrote:
I didn’t say it would stop them-not on its own, certainly. But it would make it harder for them to claim defenses, like “the lore says so” because, in this hypothetical, it doesn’t. They’d have to argue from their own merits-and sexist merits lack. It’d make it easier to call them out, and give them less to work with.


I don't agree with that. They'll just be gakky about something else. They're not saying "the lore says I can abuse members of the community." And if you think it's abusive to talk about the lore honestly, then you've got a problem...

 JNAProductions wrote:
Again-if it helps one in a thousand non-male gamers… why not? There’s no real cost to it-GW is going to release more Marine stuff anyway, it’ll just now have some lady heads too.


And taking away the dark nature of the Imperium, and the rest of the setting would make it more appealing to people who have grown up under totalitarian regimes and experienced trauma for it. Why aren't you advocating for that?

If you never drove an automobile again, both you and other people would be less likely to die. Why haven't you reorganized your life so you don't have to drive?
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Hecaton wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
I didn’t say it would stop them-not on its own, certainly. But it would make it harder for them to claim defenses, like “the lore says so” because, in this hypothetical, it doesn’t. They’d have to argue from their own merits-and sexist merits lack. It’d make it easier to call them out, and give them less to work with.


I don't agree with that. They'll just be gakky about something else.
Then we'll tackle that too.
They're not saying "the lore says I can abuse members of the community."
Of course it doesn't. Abuse is never about "this lets me abuse you". It's about excuses and obfuscation - such as "I'm not saying you can't join in, it's what the LORE says!!"
And if you think it's abusive to talk about the lore honestly, then you've got a problem...
There's a difference between saying "hey, did you know that Marneus Calgar isn't actually 'Marneus Calgar' in the lore!" and "the lore says you're not allowed to have women Astartes k thanx bye".

And I know you're aware of it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Again-if it helps one in a thousand non-male gamers… why not? There’s no real cost to it-GW is going to release more Marine stuff anyway, it’ll just now have some lady heads too.


And taking away the dark nature of the Imperium
So why does the Imperium have mixed gender guardsmen? Do you want to change that too, to add to the "dark nature of the Imperium" (that's totally not actually institutionally sexist, but I'm going to keep pretending like it is to act like I'm a saint for opposing the Imperium).
and the rest of the setting would make it more appealing to people who have grown up under totalitarian regimes and experienced trauma for it.
lol WHAT??

Sorry, am I reading right that you think 40k should be actively sexist because that's "appealing to people who have experience trauma in totalitarian regimes"?
Why is sexist lore appealing to people from totalitarian regimes?
If you never drove an automobile again, both you and other people would be less likely to die. Why haven't you reorganized your life so you don't have to drive?
Because we're talking about a toy soldiers game where the only cost you have to "suffer" is that people can have different plastic heads on their models, and that's supported by some nebulous entity in the cold cold lands of Nottingham.

Not exactly life or death to you if people get to have women's heads on their models, is it?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/12 00:39:48



They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Hecaton wrote:
Honestly the fact that Smudge hasn't been censured or banned for rampantly misrepresenting people's arguments
Hey, show me where.
and just generally being a gakky forum citizen reflects poorly on the mods.
I'm sure the mods are very aware of me by now in this thread. If they want to tell me where I'm overstepping any lines, I have every faith that they will. As Deadnight will attest to, I'm happy to admit where I've made mistakes and to walk back comments I've made, where I've shown where I've actually misrepresented people, as opposed to calling out pretty glaring issues in their arguments.

I want to make this very clear - when I call an argument or line of logic sexist, or bigoted, or problematic, or exclusionary, I am not talking about the person necessarily. Simply that the argument that this person has given, no matter what "side" you're on, has some problematic elements to it, and I'm just addressing that aspect of it.

But, as you say Hecaton, if I'm being a "gakky forum citizen", could you show which rule I'm breaking? If it's Rule 1, I'd hope a mod called me out, but it's been 70+ pages, and that hasn't happened. You say it reflects poorly on the mods - perhaps it reflects more on what you're used to getting away with, and that you're not used to the level of scrutiny I'm giving you.
I checked in one of the posts after having banned them a dozen pages ago and it's the same old bad argumentation and childlike petulance.
Have you perhaps considered that it's only the "same old bad argumentation" because I'm having to deal with the same old bad arguments that are thrown at me?

Oh, and still waiting on an explanation about how both women Space Marines would make all the male Marines horny, and how wanting women Astartes means I'm a sexual deviant.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/12 00:51:32



They/them

 
   
Made in ca
Hacking Interventor





 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
CEO Kasen and Andykp, I don't hold it against anyone and I don't want to feel like I'm calling out or blaming any individual, I don't want to point fingers on either side here - it was just a reminder for anyone who might have their sigs turned off and might have missed it, but thank you all the same. The thought is appreciated.

I didn't think you were, I'm sure lots of people were getting that sporadically wrong, but I'm very much for people choosing their pronouns and it'd be a bit dissonant for me to not fix that mistake.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I will say, for the record of anyone who still perhaps giving Hecaton a shred of credit,

Not a risk anymore.

Basically, Hecaton sees any kind of attention to the Imperium, Space Marines in particular, as fascist sympathies, and anyone who supports that attention as being a fascist sympathiser.

Just so you know who you're all dealing with.

Yow. And that doesn't make any damn sense, because there were actively sexist facets to the original Italian and German fascist states, so if we were fascist sympathizers, we'd want those divisions to remain, surely?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Oh, and still waiting on an explanation about how both women Space Marines would make all the male Marines horny, and how wanting women Astartes means I'm a sexual deviant.

The reason I find that argument utterly ridiculous is that I am a sexual deviant by many standards, but I'm, like, Kinsey 5 gay. Also an anthropomorph enthusiast. Assuming I was in this to get off, women as Marines, no matter the body type under scrutiny, wouldn't even rate as fantasy material compared to leaving Battle Barges as big gay space bathhouses, and I'm certainly not engaging in this particular debate to legitimize gratification of a fantasy when furries routinely ignore not only continuity, but anatomy and basic precepts of physics for their fun.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/12 01:21:04


"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"

-Tex Talks Battletech on GW 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
There's a difference between saying "hey, did you know that Marneus Calgar isn't actually 'Marneus Calgar' in the lore!" and "the lore says you're not allowed to have women Astartes k thanx bye".

And I know you're aware of it.

No. What is the difference?

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in ca
Hacking Interventor





 Insectum7 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
There's a difference between saying "hey, did you know that Marneus Calgar isn't actually 'Marneus Calgar' in the lore!" and "the lore says you're not allowed to have women Astartes k thanx bye".

And I know you're aware of it.

No. What is the difference?


C'mon, Insectum, I've seen your posts and I know you're capable of envisioning a few reasons.

My first go would be that one is the state of a specific character and one is not. Calgar having won or lost the battle of Planet Fumbuck or having five nipples or a logarithmic kidney has basically no effect on the scope and breadth of what you're considered allowed to do with Your Dudes and still remain 'lore-friendly.'

"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"

-Tex Talks Battletech on GW 
   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain





SoCal

 CEO Kasen wrote:
 Gert wrote:

Honestly, I'm sick of having to do this every single day. This thread has single-handedly killed a boatload of joy this hobby gave me, so thanks for that.


We rarely stop to commend one another for the work they put in a thread like this; Just know that your efforts do not go unappreciated, at least by me.


I, also, appreciate all the work you’re putting into this thread. Same for SgtSmudge, Cybtroll, Deadknight, BaronIveagh, Some Bloke and almost everyone else who’s still posting.

   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




I find it increasingly difficult to put forward my views and dont want to be sucked by the insanity of this thread.

All this "two sides" dinamic is very stressfull, specially when you are permanently framed outside your own positions. Surely this is partly due to the nature of the forum communication, but it makes it impossible to communicate any nuance or cast doubts.

Hope the best for those that want a more inclusive gamming community.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/12 05:55:59


 
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





England

Hecaton wrote:
 DalekCheese wrote:
Y’know I think I’d say something right about now- but oh, wait, I’m
-female
-white
-well-educated
And thus I’m part of a demographic that has nothing relevant to say. Thanks to Hecaton for that post a little while back reminding me of the fact.


Are you interested in wargaming? Since you're here, I assume you are. If you thought that that's what I was saying than you misread me, possibly willfully.


=Hecaton]
It's just that people keep pretending that (white, college-educated) women have something important to say on the topic when they're part of a demographic that's uninterested in the hobby, whether or not it depicts women.


Now, regardless of what you meant to imply (whether anything was implied is debateable), you said that white, college-educated women have nothing important to say on the topic- despite it being them, in large part, who are/would likely be affected by the change.
Why?
Because of the demographic we belong to.
That’s always a good way to judge someone.

See that stuff above? Completely true. All of it, every single word. Stands to reason. 
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





England

 Formosa wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Honestly the fact that Smudge hasn't been censured or banned for rampantly misrepresenting people's arguments and just generally being a gakky forum citizen reflects poorly on the mods. I checked in one of the posts after having banned them a dozen pages ago and it's the same old bad argumentation and childlike petulance.


You still have Smudge unblocked? mate just block him, you will never get an honest comment from him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now, regardless of what you meant to imply (whether anything was implied is debateable), you said that white, college-educated women have nothing important to say on the topic- despite it being them, in large part, who are/would likely be affected by the change.
Why?
Because of the demographic we belong to.
That’s always a good way to judge someone.


He is right you know, people do keep pretending that there is this mass of woman that are just waiting on the fringes of the hobby for FSM and its only that FSM that is keeping them out, if you have an opinion on this lets hear it as I would like to hear what you have to say.


I’d love it, I think it could be really cool. I model Guard, and kinda-sorta R&H, but I’ve been meaning to do some marines sometime, probably from the primarchs for extra size. I’d definitely include some women there.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Earth

Fair enough, like I said previously if people want to make the models go for it, some of them are really good like the space wolf shield maiden that was going around recently.

Angron would make a good baseline for what you are suggesting although the head is a bit of a pain to get out.
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Insectum7 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
There's a difference between saying "hey, did you know that Marneus Calgar isn't actually 'Marneus Calgar' in the lore!" and "the lore says you're not allowed to have women Astartes k thanx bye".

And I know you're aware of it.

No. What is the difference?
The difference between the two I just mentioned is that one is an interesting bit of trivia, a little nugget of lore knowledge that ultimately is harmless, can't really be used to invalidate anyone's own efforts, and is more one of those things that can prompt a bit of a "ooh wow, I didn't know that, how interesting!" reaction.
The other is actively used to invalidate player options, is worded without nuance or intrigue, and is frequently used not as a conversation starter, but as a conversation ender.

One piece of lore builds on the world and its depth, the other kills it.

Vatsetis wrote:All this "two sides" dinamic is very stressfull, specially when you are permanently framed outside your own positions. Surely this is partly due to the nature of the forum communication, but it makes it impossible to communicate any nuance or cast doubts.
Now I'll agree on that. I don't like any kind of "sides" dynamic, and the whole "you're with us or against us" that ends up happening.

Formosa wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Honestly the fact that Smudge hasn't been censured or banned for rampantly misrepresenting people's arguments and just generally being a gakky forum citizen reflects poorly on the mods. I checked in one of the posts after having banned them a dozen pages ago and it's the same old bad argumentation and childlike petulance.


You still have Smudge unblocked? mate just block him, you will never get an honest comment from him.
Hey, Formosa? I don't care that you have me blocked, I'm still going to comment on any of the bad arguments you try and raise, but misgendering me after other users have quoted it in their own comments?

That's pretty low. And you have the gall to complain about "honesty", and how you're being "polite"?


as and aside if woman want to play 40k they will, nothing stopping them
You know, except the all-boys club mentality, propped up the pervasive marginalisaton within the 40k community.

You seem to misunderstand the idea that "nothing stopping them" doesn't stop all women, but that many *do* feel excluded, who would otherwise join in. If the imaginary net prevented 90% of potential hobbyists coming in, and only let 10% in, that doesn't change how 90% of people felt excluded, even if we got 10% who let "nothing stop them".

and in my experience the army woman tend to gravitate to are Demons and Tyranids (just an observation not hard fact)
And how much of that is because they're put off of Space Marines because of their all-boys mentality?
I don't have an answer for that, but the "women don't want to play Space Marines, they want Daemons and Tyranids" answer is utterly reductive, as it takes into account what 40k is *now*, not what we're proposing it *could* be.

Again, we have many many women, both in and out of this thread calling for women Astartes, and their reasons why. Why are we pretending their reasons don't exist?

Formosa wrote: if people want to make the models go for it
But that's the problem - not everyone agrees with that!

And furthermore, if you're just going to turn and say "oh, you can make whatever women Space Marine models you like, go wild!!" - WHY DOES THE LORE NEED TO SAY THEY CAN'T?

If Space Marines being women is fine for you (evidently so, because you're okay with people doing it with their own models), why are you so against the lore saying the same?


They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Formosa wrote:


He is right you know, people do keep pretending that there is this mass of woman that are just waiting on the fringes of the hobby for FSM and its only that FSM that is keeping them out, if you have an opinion on this lets hear it as I would like to hear what you have to say.

as and aside if woman want to play 40k they will, nothing stopping them and in my experience the army woman tend to gravitate to are Demons and Tyranids (just an observation not hard fact)


Youre not wrong. However if all (both?*) of them like demons and nids, does it not suggest that the flagship faction is somehow not attractive to female gamers. While i don't fully agree with some of the pro fsm posters, I think this kind of backs up their position. And I know it's not what you're saying, but the notion can be taken from what you say that that 'these factions are fine for girls, so there's no problem' or 'tau are fine for the Japanese market' and I dont think it really helps.

*
Spoiler:
while i say 'both' in jest (I don't know your personal group or circumstances), lets face it, the female wargaming population in any area will be low dozens at best, compared to hundreds of guys


Personally I don't think 'lack of female sm' is what keeps girls and women out of the hobby. I think most 'nope' out of it, or don't get into it before even realising marines are a dood only force.

I don't think adding female sm's will all of a sudden have ladies battering down the doors to get involved and conquer 'our' space to make it 'theirs'. I think it caters more to people that want fsms than it does potential 'new recruits'. Either way, it's not a 'bad thing' to do.

Spoiler:
I think in an era of blm, metoo etc, we should be aware that sometimes cultures need to change. Even if we think.its OK, someone's other perspective might see something we don't. And I think gaming culture can be hostile to 'outsiders'. I think if we want our gaming spaces to be more welcoming to female players, or potential female players other, more important cultural shifts need to happen within our spaces and within 'how' we play, for that to happen. I've discussed this in the other thread, so won't clutter it up here.


Personally, I think my opinion has shifted round on the topic to the point where I feel there's interesting scope for awesome models and modelling via the introduction of female marines - ive said it before, but that athletic 'not-reiver' posted before was bloody awesome - ill have a Chapter of them please. There are some very nice themes, characters and people from history, fantasy, fiction and myth to run with for 'marinification' that previously, wouldn't have had a place. Having the 'gw approves of this' stamp is needed, it goes a long way to mitigating harassment and bad attitudes and making people feel welcome - we all know there are some real [bleep]s in our community that make the place toxic. Lets not help them. And honestly, if it does make a 12 year old girl walking by a gw do a double take and think this is cooler than hobbycraft, and lets some people feel more welcome in our hobby, or gives them new ideas and projects to work on, and it doesn't cost me anything at the same time - then why not. It's not pie. More for them doesnt mean less for me. Build a bigger table, not higher walls.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/07/12 11:09:56


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Welcome back Smudge, I was beginning to think you’d abandoned me!
[spoiler]
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
People with fish heads are fictional. Women aren't.
Why would people struggle to accept that women are a thing?
But why is the fiction removing women? Why is that such an important aspect? And, again, if you remove those thirteen words from the lore, and just move on, there'd be no reason to believe that women could never be Astartes in the first place.

I shouldn't be having to debate why women are similar to fish people.

You’re approaching this as if the people who are playing now don’t realise those words exist, or that marines are all male.
Having stepped away for a while and come back afresh, I can see the idea that not mentioning it and just adding female models isn’t going to require half as much lore justification as fish-marines would, because (as you said) women do exist and fish people don’t. But it will require some.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
It should be treated like any other change in 40k, yes. The problem for you is that most changes in 40k are done exactly as I describe - with no fanfare or lore development. It just suddenly *exists*.

As for "as well received as possible", I don't believe that should include appeasement. So, yes - as well received as possible, without appeasement. And from your own argument, you're painting the lore as a form of appeasement.

It is true that most things suddenly exist, but they also suddenly exist in the lore as well. They don’t just make the models and let people assume that these things exist now – both are changed in tandem. This reinforces my views that the models represent the lore, and the lore represents the models. Changing one without the other isn’t the right way to do it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, as you say, we're a cynical bunch - which is why I have no doubts that people would still say, even with a lore explanation, that this was solely for political reasons.

Those people will say that no matter what, we agree on that. But what you then need is for someone to come to the rescue of that new person who’s being told that women are only in 40k for political reasons by saying “actually, >lore dump of how cool female marines are and all the benefits the change has made to the imperium<”.
People are interested in 40k because of the models and the lore, and usually those who are attracted to the models find that they enjoy the lore about their favourite models as well. Imagine finding out that the models which drew you into the hobby have no lore?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
"Because it's cool, and 40k's always been about rule of cool".
Same answer I'd give about things like Centurion warsuits, or grav-guns, or Stormtalons.

But with Centurions, Grav-guns and Stormtalons, there are also lore reasons why they are cool. Without the lore, what makes grav-guns cool? They have the models and their rules, neither of which explain what a grav gun does. Without the lore, you might think a meltagun is just a small anti-tank rocket launcher. Even the basic description of these things is lore, and that lore is why they are cool.
Can you explain to me why grav-guns are cool without using any lore about them?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why should I be "re-educating" people who are so actively opposed to women?

Once again, I am discussing people who aren’t actively opposed to women. I am discussing that large group of people who are influenced by the environment that they are in. The people who have spent years in a boys-club where the only female models are battle-nuns in corsets.
The whole premise of this was to add female models so that the impressionable players don’t see women as outside their hobby but as a part of it. But now, you’re suggesting that these same impressionable people which you wanted to help are actively sexist, as opposed to “just not used to seeing women”.
Yes, the people actively opposed to women (IRL, not those opposed to female models) need to be ostracised, because their behaviour harms others. But those who make women feel uncomfortable by acting like they’ve never seen one before and staring at them as they perform the most perfunctory of polite glances round the shop before practically leaping out of the door are the ones which need to be helped, not kicked out.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sure - and I'd have to then have the same conversation we're having right now with the "the change was unnecessary!" group (which would almost certainly still exist with your proposed idea still) and challenge why Space Marines need to men in the first place.

Nothing changes, as far as I'm concerned, except they lose legitimacy.

Both groups will exist, but they will draw greater numbers if there is nothing to oppose their views.
If a lot of people could be stopped from thinking that it was all political just by justifying the models’ existence in the lore instead of justifying it in the real world, then that’s a good thing to do, isn’t it?
Once again, I reiterate that every model in 40k is justified to exist based on the lore, not based on the real world. There are definitely real-world reasons to include them (£££, mostly) but the lore is still there. Nothing in 40k exists solely for political reasons, even if it was added for them.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
…But I can't dictate how people choose to react to their arguments being shown wrong.

You have missed the largest group, I think – those who don’t have any argument about this. The people who will simply pick up on what others are saying and pass it on.
If a person spends too long in the company of sceptics, they become sceptical. If a person spends too ling in the company of people who say the change was political, they will tell others the change was political. They are the parrots who amplify the viewpoints of the outspoken. If nobody is saying “actually it’s because these reasons” then every parrot in society will say “bwaark, it’s political!”.
I feel like the parrots of the warhammer community are probably more concerned with the game than the politics. They would far rather repeat cool titbits of lore, stories of battles won by the increased marine population, and so on than “bwaark, it’s political!” over and over. But if that lore’s not there, then they won’t be able to repeat it.
Now have those people strongly against the change leave the GW (they don’t live there after all) and some new people come in who are interested in female marines. Hearing all the parrots say “bwaark, it’s political” will make them less interested than hearing all the cool lore about them.
Further adding to the cool lore aspect, when was the last time they added a weapon or unit to 40k which wasn’t actively described in the coolest way it could be? Are they about to add guard models with autoguns instead of lasguns and be like “eh, they fire bullets instead of lasers”? Or will the next weapons added fire >scifi-tech< enhanced by >40k stuff< which results in >gory descriptions<?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The people who are for it are armed with "there's literally no justifiably consistent reason why Space Marines need to be all-male, so why are they?" and "I want people to have as much choice as possible in their hobby".

I’m talking about people who support it post-change, who we want to be making the stores a better place, not a worse one.
And, honestly, that first one is a terrible argument. Here’s It laid out:
“The only reason for >change< was politics!”
“Actually, there was no reason not to do >change<!”
“So what was the reason for >change<?”
“…There wasn’t a reason not to…”
“I’ll tell you the reason – politics!”
Notice who won that argument?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
because real human people literally just existing doesn't need lore.

I get what you’re saying. I really do. But 1: Space marines aren’t real people, and 2: Space marines currently exist as all male, both on the table and in the lore. Female guardsmen existed in the lore, and were late being added to the table. The addition of the models was their models catching up with the lore they are meant to represent. Space marine lore has no female marines for the models to represent. As such, it needs to be changed.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But WHY aren't women Space Marines a thing right now??

They literally won't stick out at all any more so than women Guardsmen stick out.

They aren’t a thing because they aren’t in the lore. Not being there is as good as being actively denied when it comes to the lore, especially when the models also only show male marines.
Why is that? Business decisions and 13 words. Regardless of whether you agree with the decisions made or the conclusions drawn, they were made and they were drawn. This is the reality of the situation right now, regardless of how frustrating it is!
Women guardsmen are mentioned in the lore. Show me a mention of a female marine in the lore, and we can represent them with a model without needing to change it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Neither were grav-guns, or Centurions, or Stormravens or any of the countless other things GW just invented.

Why is "women" such a hard hurdle?

“Women” is irrelevant.
It’s a thing which doesn’t exist now and we want to exist. If we just make the models, it will still not be in the lore, and the model will not represent anything in the lore, and so it will not be the same as every other model in the game, and as such, will stick out like a sore thumb.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
"Because it's cool, and we wanted to give people options. Same reason why we have all these cool new units!"

Explain why it’s cool without any lore explaining what effect it has had in the 40k universe. Every option is justified in the lore (make your own chapter with its own colours is justified in the lore by saying that there are lost or forgotten ones), why should this one be any different?
I can explain to you why Grav-Guns are cool. They use ancient tech to manipulate gravity to crush the target under its own mass, turning them to pulp. Against heavy armour, it reduced them to nothing more than a crimson trickle.
Without the lore, I can tell you grav guns are cool because they are another weapon option for marines. That’s not cool, that’s just existence.
So you can explain why female marines exist without the lore – they exist because they exist – but you cannot explain why they are cool.
And once you add the lore, you can’t even explain why they exist without changing the lore from excluding them.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
People will make that assumption regardless of whatever reason you give, unfortunately - as evidenced by Primaris and women Stormcast. If someone wants to ascribe political motivations to it, they will, no matter what you tell them.

So nobody at all just thought they were cool, and read the lore about why they are there (they take anyone who shows promise) and thought “that’s so cool!”?
If someone says “female stormcast only exist for politics”, there’s a chance someone will reply “actually, they don’t care who you are for making a stormcast ,they take anyone who’s worthy”.
And anyone listening can draw their conclusions from both sides of the argument.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes. The explanation for how they came to be, and how come they weren't there before on older models is never addressed. There's no "Celisarius Bawl invented the grav-gun in M41, and that's why you never see them in the Tyrannic Wars". It's like they always existed.

The only lore they have is literally "these exist now". Which is exactly what I'm advocating for women Astartes.

The only issue I can see there is that there was no lore saying “space marines don’t have grav guns”.
The lore currently excludes something which exists IRL. Without changing the lore, adding it is contradictory.
I’d be happy enough with lore explanation of them just existing, though I would prefer to see them added differently.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, did black Space Marines not exist until they were explicitly mentioned/shown? Was everyone in the Imperium white?

The lore isn't "permissive" at all, otherwise the whole concept of custom Chapters is killed in the crib. The lore is incredibly flexible and open-ended to player creativity, with only a handful of hard limits and restrictions - which is why the whole "you can do anything except have women in your Space Marines" is so bafflingly bizarre.

There was no mention in the lore of every marine being white, so it did not exclude other ethnicities. But there is mention of every marine being male, so that does exclude female marines, unless they are somehow also male.
Custom chapters are permitted by them saying “chapters are lost, so they could look like anything!”.
The hard limit on making custom chapters of marines is “they are marines”.
Then we are faced with “what are marines”, and the lore says “superhuman all-male soldiers”.
The issue is nothing to do with the fact that they are female.
Let’s say they went a different route – one we have discussed – where they make marines look less human so they aren’t representative of anyone.
If they did that, they would need some justification for it in the lore, the lore would have to change – because the models and the lore wouldn’t match any more. They made the models something that aren’t marines, lore-wise, so the lore has to change to make the new models fit into the 40k universe.
Remove the political justification for including female models from the argument – it’s got no opposition from me, because there is no counter argument. Just look at the facts: Marine models currently are as they are in the lore. We want marine models to be something else, therefore the lore has to change.
When they added a proper range of skin tones, they will have looked at the lore and said “does anything in here stop this from being a thing?” If there were a piece of lore saying “only white boys get to be marines”, then that is definitely getting cut out for it – the lore would have been changed and the lore & models/paint would continue to match. As it was, there was nothing to change.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't get why you seem to think that "women being written in the lore" means "we need to explain how they suddnely exist" instead of just "we include women in the lore".

I guess it’s because they do suddenly exist. But I do concede that they could just as easily be written as having always existed – but I feel that would require explanations of why they had never been mentioned before. I’m all for the idea that female marines are only subtly different in appearance, and that they were mistaken for male marines by all the scribes, and they don’t care so didn’t correct them, because what they were before they were space marines doesn’t matter to them.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Exactly - they never cared about women in the first place. So when women Astartes are added, no matter what lore reason you give, they'll still grimace at the inclusion of women, because they don't care about women. Simply including women will be seen as political, because to them, anything not in the game is "political", and because women weren't in the game before, this will be political.

These same people wouldn’t have seen grav-guns as political, or centurion suits, or primaris (business =/= political). Just because it wasn’t there and is now doesn’t make people assume it’s political.
Most people, if given a cool reason for things existing, will accept it. It’s only if there’s nothing that they will not accept it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Because that ammunition can be removed without writing things in as well.

The problem with writing stuff in is that it still creates the impression that the lore is more important than people, and that it still doesn't remove that "but this was a political change!!" motive.

“The lore is important” =/= “The lore is more important than the people”.
40k exists outside of reality. The universe itself is entirely fictional, and you can represent the things in that universe fighting one another using the models GW sells. Changing the lore in the same way you would for any other change doesn’t offer any comparison between it and people, because the two don’t even exist in the same universe. One’s entirely fiction, the other’s entirely real.
You might as well say “Changing the models would imply that the models are more important than people!”
I’m not suggesting it will remove the argument – but it will give their opposition something to use to shut them up. And shutting up the people making the place bad is the goal, so that’s a win.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No, it doesn't. And GW don't even agree with that principle. As I've said - grav-guns, Stormtalons, Centurion suits, etc etc.

All of which have lore explaining their existence, retrospective or otherwise.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No, they don't - not like how you're describing how you want to add women Astartes.

Where's the lore "backing up" women Tau? Because I don't think anything ever backs it up beyond "this exists".

Bear in mind that space marines are in a unique situation in that their lore says that female marines don’t exist. T’au has no such restriction. The lore never excluded women, the models just never represented them. Space marines have a different problem, that needs to be solved in a different way.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sure. So you change the lore to say that Space Marines are gender neutral, and anyone can be recruited, or simply remove any mention of exclusionary recruiting processes.

Simple.

Yep. You change the lore so the new models represent the current lore, and it’s all consistent. We agree! (sound the trumpets!

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
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





England

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Formosa wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Honestly the fact that Smudge hasn't been censured or banned for rampantly misrepresenting people's arguments and just generally being a gakky forum citizen reflects poorly on the mods. I checked in one of the posts after having banned them a dozen pages ago and it's the same old bad argumentation and childlike petulance.


You still have Smudge unblocked? mate just block him, you will never get an honest comment from him.
Hey, Formosa? I don't care that you have me blocked, I'm still going to comment on any of the bad arguments you try and raise, but misgendering me after other users have quoted it in their own comments?

That's pretty low. And you have the gall to complain about "honesty", and how you're being "polite"?



Oh, now that is unpleasant. No call for that at all.

See that stuff above? Completely true. All of it, every single word. Stands to reason. 
   
Made in it
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





Sesto San Giovanni, Italy

I think that, even if anecdotally, it's however of relevance that of all the faction available, the few female wargamers of WH40k choose, usually, the faction that are less genderized.

What you could see as proof that there isn't interest in representation, I see it as proof that all the other factions (including Sisters) aren't representative enough.
If really Sister can "cover" for representation issue, I would expect to see some girls playing them. Instead, the (very few) female wargamers I met played to two faction mentioned above, Orks or Necron.
GSC weren't available at the time unfortunately... And this may be true for Sister too, that were almost entirely neglected until few years ago.

But, considering that (I think the overwhelming majority of the forum) always lament that Space Marine are the protagonist while all the Xeno and chaos faction (and even Imperial ones, to a certain degree) play as antagonist... That's more than enough for the rebuttal of the idea that we should rely on Sister to somehow cover for the problem.

Telling other people they can always play a second-choice is unacceptable in terms of the Xeno/Marine discussions, why should I accept it for about female representation?
But that said, why suppose/suggest a 180° change on GW policies, when a few additional heads and a very small update to lore (with overall positive effects) have the same final output?

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
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Grimskul wrote:To be fair, you're not entitled to have a member address you by your pronouns.
Sorry, but I really am - that's a basic level of respect. Especially when actively refusing to do so is a pretty blatant violation of Rule 1, "to be polite".

Getting it wrong the first time is normal, especially if they can't see a sig. That's why I didn't kick off at anyone for getting it wrong the first time. But when it has actively been quoted by users that they *don't have blocked*, and then continuing to use quotation marks around it, that's pretty blatantly going out of their way to be insulting.
Especially one that can't actually see most of your posts or sigs and need to go through an incredibly roundabout way from other people quoting you being upset about it.
I don't think "reading other people's comments" is "incredibly roundabout". After all, should we not be reading people's arguments in this thread? Wouldn't not doing that be the antithesis of a discussion?

And that still doesn't excuse *going out of their way to put quote marks over it*.
You can feel personally offended by it, but I mean I can choose to be personally offended by the sight of a poster's pic having a cooked chicken if I was vegan, doesn't mean that it breaks anything regarding forum rules.
Read for me what Rule 1 is, please.

Also, pronouns and personal identity aren't the same as a goddamn chicken.


They/them

 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





Pronouns are political now? How are we to refer to one another, then? Proper nouns for everything?

Sorry, "we" is a pronoun. To avoid bringing politics into this, I'll rephrase.

How are the forum posters to refer to one another, then?

Okay, completely a-political.

edit: ugh, another (and other!)in this usage is a pronoun too.

How are the forum posters to refer to forum posters besides the forum poster that is speaking, then?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/12 13:33:59


 
   
Made in nl
[MOD]
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Cozy cockpit of an Imperial Knight

Offending posts have been removed, warnings have been issued and it has been decided that this topic will not be reopened, as discussion is only going round in circles at this point, with both sides of the argument generating an excessive amount of warnings on a daily basis.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/12 16:04:12


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Background
Go to: