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.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Where'd you get that? The Scion codex seemed pretty neutral on it.

The Ciaphas Cain and Gaunt's Ghost books mostly.

 Boneville wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Boneville wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Boneville wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I have explained my stance on Female Space Marines. I do not think they are necessary, because there is a fluff explanation as to why they cannot exist, and I do not see a problem with the limitation, as it runs parallel to the inverse restriction on gender with the Sisters of Battle. I accept the fluff, as there is no reason for me to question it over any other piece of fluff, such as "Why are orks green?" or "Why does a lasgun look like that?" or "Why does the Warp exist?" There is no neglected gender fluff wise, but I can completely agree that representation of women in the factions they should be represented in is shockingly neglectful..

Actually you have referred to a fluff piece that states that women cant be space marines. So i ask you: what would change or break for the space marines if GW tomorrow changes the passage and introduces female space marines? What change is so horrible that the passage cant be changed?

Firstly, I have no idea what that first sentence referred to.

Secondly, I think the more important thing, which is more accepted in debates like this, is why should be changed in the first place? I shouldn't have to justify that which already exists.
Prove to me that it should be changed, and then I can contest. However, I won't just respond to a "But why not" without a reason.

The point of the question was that for someone who is very adamant to not include female space marine, you havent actually elaborated on why such a change would be bad for the faction. you have said that fluff says no, asked what gender means to sisters, but when asked with the same question you refuse to give an answer as to what in the space marines as a faction limits this.

I have my own theory: because you lose nothing. nothing in the space marines description (other than prefixes) or themes of different chapters actually stop working because female space marines are added to them. Or can you prove me wrong?

Adding female Space Marines is as "bad" as adding Male Sisters of Battle. To me, it is the same scenario. If Sisters of Battle did not exist, I would push for mixed gender Space Marines.

So, with that knowledge, why should it be changed?

I say you lose the sense of hopelessness in the Imperium, and the cost of gene-seed. Hopelessness in that they cannot use a full 50% of their potential applicants due to gender, and the cost of gene-seed being that great power, but 50% of the population cannot accept it.

I will say that you have a good reason to believe that, it is a good explanation of the themes present. But i have to say that in my opinion the hopelessness and desperation of the imperium can be conveyed without locking down the faction to one gender.

I would explain it by having the geneseed be deadly if youre not compatible, meaning 50% of the people that gets chosen die when the gene seed is adminestrated. it would then go in line with the imperium using it despite the risk because the cost is deemed acceptable. Then i add the fact that gene seed is deemed a holy relic from the golden age and cant be tampered with despite the fact that they cant "fix" the mortality rate because they cant use it that way and by decree only the space marines themselves can choose who gets to initiate this transformation, wich they do because of honour, martial skill etc and not actually if they are safe from the gene seed killing them.

I think this shows that the imperium is desperate for survival but still hold the past to such a high degree that they arent willing to progress forward.

Because to me at the end of the day female space marines is a best case scenario and i dont really care all that much if i never see them even though i will defend my opinion and said oipinion is entrenched in the idea of representation and equality. What i meant by the in-universe explanations was that i wanted you to give me the sort of explanation that you just gave me. i now understand why you think it is important for the faction to be male only.

And i must confess that i might have kept the discussion going just to see if i can get this sort of answer.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Boneville wrote:

 Lusall wrote:
There's some good fan fiction out there. And the thing is, 40K sort of invites you to write your own fan fiction. At least it used to. A lot more than it does now, I think. So it's not shocking that this conversation comes up. What do people do when they write/create fan fiction? They like to insert themselves into their little slice of the fluff.

And like I've said, I don't mind at all if people have female space marines. It's your 40K.

I do think that more female characters in the armies that are unisex wouldn't be a bad thing. Hell, it would be a good thing. There are plenty of dudes that would love to see more women characters, especially for their Imperium armies.

I always like good stories, do you know where one can find fan fiction? Is there a community hub or are they scattered throughout different sites?

1d4chan has some, but they tend to be a bit NSFW or lulz-worthy.
Dakka Fiction has some good material on it.

Insert shameless plug on the links in my sig but don't feel obliged to because they're nothing compared to some other works in there, notably Dark Lord Seanron's Death of the Emperor I'm sorry I'll stop

Oh yeah, thanks. i will have to check it out.

Looks like someone beat me to it. Sorry for the late response. Portent/Warseer use to have some good fan fic. ID4chan I'm told has some good stuff too. Mainly you have to find it randomly. Some people in facebook 40K groups post their stories and I've enjoyed some.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Emphasis on "think". Which is fine. I just disagree, but that's just me.

Well, I also spent quite some time explaining why I think this too ^^.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But the Ecclesiarchy shows plenty of variety in it's organisation - from clearing new pastures for the God-Emperor, to defending Shrine Worlds, to enlightening reunited human colonies, etc etc. Sisters could easily be expanded without the removal of any entrenched lore, which would go hand in hand with a new wave of miniatures.

Yeah, they definitely could get more miniatures. But even if they got as many new models as there exist of Eldars (both CWE and DE) it would still be less than what Marines get, so…

 Just Tony wrote:
Yes it is. With the exception of the EXACT Imperial department they answer to, Sisters of Battle are essentially weaker Black Templars.

Nope.

 Just Tony wrote:
So show me the "facts" that disprove this.

I would rather play a mixed-gendered Sisters of Battle army than a Black Templar army. Because Sisters are different in various ways that make them more interesting.

 Just Tony wrote:
Cool, we can swing that. While we're at it, only the Sisters of the Penitent Rose can be all female. Equality and all. Wouldn't want double standards.

Nah, an Order is not equivalent to a Chapter. Orders all belongs to the same organization and are similar. Chapters are completely distinct organization with very different interests, cultures and all that.

 Just Tony wrote:
To everyone else, it sounds like a political agenda.

“So, uh, those evil people are pushing an evil political agenda, which is, uh, that media have a more equal portrayal of men and women, which is very bad, because reasons. Very dark very hidden agenda that they carefully hide, but push in the shadows nonetheless!”

For the record, I find belligerence adorable.

Yeah I know this is kind of backseat moderating, and I know this thread is thirteen pages long now, but that's not an excuse to get off topic and start making condescending personal attacks.

We're talking about our differing interpretations of 40k lore as it relates to women in the Imperium. "Politics" are involved because people and their interactions with greater society are involved, and ultimately that's what politics is about-- being an active citizen in a larger society. And to try to drag this back on topic, women in the Imperium are exactly that, active members of Imperial society. This isn't "pushing an agenda" or however you want to phrase it, it's just a fact about the lore.

When I look at a fictional world I look at it from the confines of that fictional world, I don't throw real world politics or activism in when I read/view/play/whatever it. My issues are with people who do such, and that is why you have a thread that's 13 pages long that essentially boils down to most people being for representation, and a few for specific representation of themselves or their friends in the fluff, no matter how it contradicts existing canon. When met with such belligerence, I tend to get condescending apparently. That is my fault, and I will endeavor to actively circumvent that.





Hybrid: I will simply handle our disagreement like I do with my 15 year old when she's firmly entrenched. "You're right, I'm wrong, I'm shutting up."

 Just Tony wrote:
I don't throw real world politics or activism in when I read/view/play/whatever it.

Yes, you do.

The lens you view any fiction through is your lived experience as a human being, your knowledge, history, education, and the culture in which you were raised. Claiming that your experience isn't politics but others' are is the real condescension here.

I made my views on the Space Marine / Female Space Marine topic rather clear before I think, but just to elaborate-- they're not important to me. Neither one. This is a topic about "women in the imperium", and yet stereotypically, it's instead revolving around screaming angry (mostly white) space marine men.

Women in the Imperium-- and men-- fulfill far more roles than just "fodder for producing mary sues encased somewhere inside of powered armor".

It is certainly true that how we understand the real world affects how we understand fiction (and vice versa). That said, I am completely wary of analyzing fiction in order to "discover" the creators' "unconscious biases," especially when it turns out to actually be an analysis of how the fiction is received by whoever rather than what the creators arguably intended. In the case of 40k, it's pretty hard to argue that the setting is meant to comment on or even reflect any real-world racism or sexism - and maybe this is surprising given the deeply dystopian character of the setting. This is a pretty solid summary:

 Melissia wrote:
To be honest, the Imperium isn't really more sexist than modern society; in some ways more, in some ways less, depending on the planet and the institution.

The Imperium is a big place and hypothetical fanfiction or even a story published by BL set on a planet where sexism was standard practice would not be out of place. On the other hand, it still would not be reflective of the larger 40k brand. And I am definitely keeping in mind how huge SM are to that brand.

So these are coming out and would look good for 40k but sadly as its Warlord they are likely too small :(

Still they look like kick ass women to me

WLG might actually be fine for 40k - they tend to be beefier, more heroic miniatures (at least the Bolt Action range). I want a squad or three of these ladies for sure!

 Mr Morden wrote:
So these are coming out and would look good for 40k but sadly as its Warlord they are likely too small :(

Still they look like kick ass women to me

Somebody should take the sculptor for these minis and bend his right wrist at that angle, doubt he'd find much ability to fire a weapon like that.

 Just Tony wrote:


Somebody should take the sculptor for these minis and bend his right wrist at that angle, doubt he'd find much ability to fire a weapon like that.

Well they are heroic scale miniatures - it's more about them looking cool rather than their poses being entirely practical.

Yeah their poses really look off to me. Their chests are also a bit too pronounced, they are all bare-faced and also often bare-headed so they should look satisfyingly female to everyone regardless.

Good attempt though.

 Ashiraya wrote:
also often bare-headed

?

2/10 aren't wearing hats

 Ashiraya wrote:
Yeah their poses really look off to me. Their chests are also a bit too pronounced

You know I was thinking that - don't they have the "boob armour" that everyone says is sexualisation of a model?

 Manchu wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
also often bare-headed

?

2/10 aren't wearing hats

20% qualifies as 'often' to me.

OK.

Love that woolly layer inside their great coats. These girls will probably look super cool painted up.

 Melissia wrote:
The lens you view any fiction through is your lived experience as a human being, your knowledge, history, education, and the culture in which you were raised. Claiming that your experience isn't politics but others' are is the real condescension here.

Exactly. "I'm fine with things as they are now" is a political opinion.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The lens you view any fiction through is your lived experience as a human being, your knowledge, history, education, and the culture in which you were raised. Claiming that your experience isn't politics but others' are is the real condescension here.

Exactly. "I'm fine with things as they are now" is a political opinion.

I'm confused how this has anything to do with politics in the first place, but certainly your view can and will be down to your schema

I have a growing feeling that this thread is going to get locked soon...

 Lusall wrote:
If by Imperium, you mean the Administratum? They don't give two effs if you're male or female. You're life is a currency and they'll spend it all the same. Male, female, or whatever.

But there are surely worlds that are backwards AF and others where females rule and everything in between.

Why is female supremacy ok and male supremacy "backwards AF"? They're either both backwards for their lack of equality or they both have merit.

I feel like the only faction that really needs a change is the Imperial Guard.

Adepta Sororitas are only female, equivalent of Battle Nuns. That, is fine. The Elite men go to Militarum Tempestus, the Females go to Sororitas.

Same thing with Space Marines. All of their enhancements and abilities are designed to make them better at killing, and are built off testosterone. So it's understandable for it to be a Men only thing. Also the whole descendants of Primarchs, who are all Men. I also don't really think of Space Marines as a power fantasy like the old Conan comics in the 80's. All the new art depicts them as a young Schwarzenegger, but I like the description of Astartes in the Decent of Angels novel, where without the armour they look like a gross mound of muscle and flesh, like a bodybuilder who has gone waaaaaayyyy too far.

With the Imperial Guard, there is no excuse as to why there are no Females. I'm pretty sure your sex doesn't matter when you are facing a horde of Tyranids armed with a flashlight. Don't even need to change up the models, just add a set of female heads. Look at the modern military, cover up their faces and most of the time you can't tell the difference. Also chuck in a female Commisar or two. Nobody is going to disrespect her when she can very easily put a bullet through your skull. 3 blams later and the entire regiment has learned not to call her Dollface.

So yeah, leave the other factions as Girls only and Boys only, but make Imperial Guard the actual representation of the Common folk, mixed sex

I'm all for that, I couldn't agree more. I.G./A.M. Might be all male on planets like Krieg, but elsewhere there'd be mixed regiments and all female regiments. They can do that without ret-conning the fluff and that's the only thing that would annoy me. I don't wanna see a long lost female primarch or male sisters of battle. IG/Eldar/Tau/Dark Eldar/inquistion/admech/skit/GSC all should have female options however.

Melissia wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I don't throw real world politics or activism in when I read/view/play/whatever it.

Yes, you do.

The lens you view any fiction through is your lived experience as a human being, your knowledge, history, education, and the culture in which you were raised. Claiming that your experience isn't politics but others' are is the real condescension here.

No, I don't. I can read through any fiction objectively. Honestly, the worst experiences I have with fiction is where species that have NO sort of allegory with humanity are given one, rather specific ones typically, which breaks immersion for me and dulls it down to me essentially reading human cosplay. When I saw the Star Wars prequels, the first thing that killed it for me was the Howard Cosell announcer, the second was the bar with the "death sticks" salesman. Why didn't they just slap a few Pepsi or Doritos signs everywhere? If you're going to break immersion to that degree, might as well go all out.

Manchu wrote:It is certainly true that how we understand the real world affects how we understand fiction (and vice versa). That said, I am completely wary of analyzing fiction in order to "discover" the creators' "unconscious biases," especially when it turns out to actually be an analysis of how the fiction is received by whoever rather than what the creators arguably intended. In the case of 40k, it's pretty hard to argue that the setting is meant to comment on or even reflect any real-world racism or sexism - and maybe this is surprising given the deeply dystopian character of the setting. This is a pretty solid summary:

 Melissia wrote:
To be honest, the Imperium isn't really more sexist than modern society; in some ways more, in some ways less, depending on the planet and the institution.

The Imperium is a big place and hypothetical fanfiction or even a story published by BL set on a planet where sexism was standard practice would not be out of place. On the other hand, it still would not be reflective of the larger 40k brand. And I am definitely keeping in mind how huge SM are to that brand.

The thing about the 40K universe is that it's an extension of our current universe, so human tropes are totally to be expected. Unless it's the Eldar or another race. Picture an Eldar taking out their iphone 77.1 to answer their farseer. Yeah....

 Just Tony wrote:
No, I don't. I can read through any fiction objectively.

I very strongly doubt that.

 Just Tony wrote:
No, I don't. I can read through any fiction objectively.

If you are annoyed by finding what you think is “real world politics or activism”, maybe it's because you do throw real world politics and activism in there (and I mean the maybe ^^). For instance, I remember when a bunch of Gamergate people were very very upset about some Baldur's Gate expansion having a character mention that she was raised as a boy. So, is it the writers introducing real-world politics… or is it really the complainers introducing the real-world politics where the existence of trans people is considered somehow controversial, in a world where it's not considered political at all, and sex change happens regularly as a matter of fact (even back in BG1 there was a cursed magic item that did just that)? Wouldn't not portraying trans be “injecting real world politics or activism”? Here I would say they were the one injecting.

On the other hand, sometime the injection of real world politics in very obvious, like in, say, 1984, or for a way way less talented take, Dan Simmons' Flashback. But then usually that is the very reason people read those books for.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
No, I don't. I can read through any fiction objectively.

If you are annoyed by finding what you think is “real world politics or activism”, maybe it's because you do throw real world politics and activism in there (and I mean the maybe ^^). For instance, I remember when a bunch of Gamergate people were very very upset about some Baldur's Gate expansion having a character mention that she was raised as a boy. So, is it the writers introducing real-world politics… or is it really the complainers introducing the real-world politics where the existence of trans people is considered somehow controversial, in a world where it's not considered political at all, and sex change happens regularly as a matter of fact (even back in BG1 there was a cursed magic item that did just that)? Wouldn't not portraying trans be “injecting real world politics or activism”? Here I would say they were the one injecting.

On the other hand, sometime the injection of real world politics in very obvious, like in, say, 1984, or for a way way less talented take, Dan Simmons' Flashback. But then usually that is the very reason people read those books for.

Really? Did you read the steam reviews? They criticized the game more commonly for becoming buggy and secondly for making a character they described as a Trans Token character. Not a Trans character that is Trans but has other personality points but one that only exists to be Trans. Point being if your only identifier is being gay, straight or trans and you have no other qualities as a human being you are very one dimensional and boring. I mean i remember reading a gaming site criticizing the steam reviewers while cherry picking the most offensive reviews only for the commenters in the article to actually sometimes talk crap about the journalist. Even more interesting was a Trans person saying they hated the Trans Token character as it was a Token character with no other depth. In short just including somebody that's Trans or Gay without other features is lazy and is only done to check a box on a representation list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rakar wrote:
I'm all for that, I couldn't agree more. I.G./A.M. Might be all male on planets like Krieg, but elsewhere there'd be mixed regiments and all female regiments. They can do that without ret-conning the fluff and that's the only thing that would annoy me. I don't wanna see a long lost female primarch or male sisters of battle. IG/Eldar/Tau/Dark Eldar/inquistion/admech/skit/GSC all should have female options however.

I will admit IG need more, eldar have a bunch but could use more, tau have a couple but considering the battle suits it's often hard to tell (unless we're talking fire warriors but they are very alien), dark eldar have a lot but could maybe use a female archon, admech replace so much with robot parts you may as well make a female necron lord considering they don't even have genitalia anymore (robot boobies?), GSC may actually make sense with female soldiers as they are basically slightly alien guard. I would rather not picture a female GSC though. Chances are what they've got is not going to win any beauty contests. And now i wonder if anybody made some really disgusting dirty fan fics or pics with GSC. Believe it or not there was one pic i found of skaven raping a lizardmen chick or trying to. I think i was as disgusted as i was shocked a person's porn got that oddly specific and fetish filled.

You guys wanna know what game had lots of female characters and models? Warhammer Fantasy. Thank god Kirby got the boot. He probably nearly got tar and feathered.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
No, I don't. I can read through any fiction objectively.

If you are annoyed by finding what you think is “real world politics or activism”, maybe it's because you do throw real world politics and activism in there (and I mean the maybe ^^). For instance, I remember when a bunch of Gamergate people were very very upset about some Baldur's Gate expansion having a character mention that she was raised as a boy. So, is it the writers introducing real-world politics… or is it really the complainers introducing the real-world politics where the existence of trans people is considered somehow controversial, in a world where it's not considered political at all, and sex change happens regularly as a matter of fact (even back in BG1 there was a cursed magic item that did just that)? Wouldn't not portraying trans be “injecting real world politics or activism”? Here I would say they were the one injecting.

On the other hand, sometime the injection of real world politics in very obvious, like in, say, 1984, or for a way way less talented take, Dan Simmons' Flashback. But then usually that is the very reason people read those books for.

If a species has an id or ego, then addressing subjects such as transgenderism isn't injecting human specific issues into the fiction. But saying every evolved species has a sitcom called "Friends" would definitely be. Assuming every species on every planet in every fiction has bars and people dance to hip hop would most assuredly be. Read Barry B. Longyear's The Enemy Papers to see how you can deal with an alien species without hamfisting Earth culture into every aspect of their lives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
No, I don't. I can read through any fiction objectively.

I very strongly doubt that.

And you'd be wrong.

 Just Tony wrote:
But saying every evolved species has a sitcom called "Friends" would definitely be. Assuming every species on every planet in every fiction has bars and people dance to hip hop would most assuredly be.

Oh okay. It's fair, but I don't understand how we switched topic to this.

 Just Tony wrote:
Assuming every species on every planet in every fiction has bars and people dance to hip hop would most assuredly be.

I don't really see what your point here is, things like this are near-universal in scifi. I guess you can be annoyed by a common genre element, but what are you really trying to accomplish here?