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.

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
What about this universe [...] would have the suspension of disbelief ruined by the presence of a female marine?

Sorry but I'm not talking about suspension of disbelief. I'm talking about a coherent aesthetic.

I don't see anything in 40k that would make it less coherent if there were fem-marines, but then again I've been called a marine-hater and marine-basher and the like for years now (even as I was posting Space Marine lists, custom chapter lore, and discussing how awesome I thought Space Wolves and Salamanders are), so my opinion probably doesn't matter.

Go to school for one day and this thread has exploded! Wow

Anyway, here's the dealio: It's not possible for there to be female marines. Just like Sisters of Battle don't traditionally give into vices like sex, etc. It's part of the background.

Please, tell me more of how, in this make believe background where space marines have 2 hearts and can spit acid, that these pretend organs won't work.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
Anyway, here's the dealio: It's not possible for there to be female marines. Just like Sisters of Battle don't traditionally give into vices like sex, etc. It's part of the background.

But GW has demonstrated their willingness to change the background whenever it's convenient, and "no female marines" is a fluff detail, not an inherent part of "genetically engineered super-soldiers in power armor" that can't be changed without destroying the entire concept.

(Of course having an all-male army wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue if marines weren't the majority of the game.)

 Meade wrote:
On the Cain subject... yes, strangely that makes sense. A lot of sense.

On advertising to girls like they're retards... well, as a young boy a lot of people tried to convince me that there was a fat man who came down the chimney to give me presents and he flew in a sled pulled by reindeer. So I don't think it's entirely gender-specific. The pink-blue thing is rather obviously made up by culture and it goes both ways.

You don't understand the full extent of it, then. I really recommend you read through those two links I gave, if you want to understand my low opinion about the expertise and intelligence of the advertising industry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
Anyway, here's the dealio: It's not possible for there to be female marines.

If GW wanted to change it, it's possible. Just like with every other part of the lore.

The question isn't "can", it's "should".

Female space marines... is just not part of the fluff. The Imperium is Nazi Germany/Roman Empire on a galactic scale... why would they be politically correct? I hate that the game is so dominated by space marines and I'd change it if I could, but it could be worse. It's like complaining if you play a WW2 game that all the soldiers are dudes. Well, except maybe for the Russians, they were all dudes.

When I read literature and I pick up a book with a female lead character, the fact that she's female doesn't stop me from identifying with the character, if its well written. Maybe I enjoy Hemingway slightly more that Jane Austen, but the fact remains I can appreciate both books for what they are.

 Peregrine wrote:
But GW has demonstrated their willingness to change the background whenever it's convenient, and "no female marines" is a fluff detail, not an inherent part of "genetically engineered super-soldiers in power armor" that can't be changed without destroying the entire concept.

It's a set-in-stone part of the universe that there are no female Marines. Saying "But they could change that!" is a cop-out, because they could change literally anything tomorrow. They could say that Ultramarines are red if they wanted. That all races use Lasguns. That Dub-Step is the major past-time of the Tyranids. They could even say that Marines don't even exist if they wanted to. The fact of the matter is that once you take away "But they could change it!" you're left with the solidly maintained and unchangeable (by any of us) fact that there are no female Marines that it has been specifically stated that the process of making Marines precludes the female gender.

There is no argument to be entered. There is no debate to be had. This is as a solid a 'fact' as one gets in 40K, alongside "Marines use Bolters" and the names of the four Chaos Gods.

Of course they could change it at a whim, but until such time as they do, there is simply no point in arguing otherwise.

Fairness aside, it'd be interesting to see GW even attempt to make female SM's as they have yet to exist since the time of the Emperor.

In this case, I'd be ok with settling with the SoB as female SM equivalent's because they'd have some serious explaining to do after 25 years of pure manliness lore that has essentially dug itself into the annuls of GW. It's really hard to remove the skeleton of a creature when it's still alive and expect it to stay that way - but morphing or even breaking them to a certain degree certainly gives rise to new and interesting paths of motion......

i'd like to see female marines, GW don't make any good female heads for me to give to them for me to make my own

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Fairness aside, it'd be interesting to see GW even attempt to make female SM's as they have yet to exist since the time of the Emperor.

I wouldn't have a problem with it. I mean, we'd of course get an Amazonian Chapter ('cause they wouldn't be able to help themselves) and there'd be a "Big Bertha" character and an "Artemis" character (again, because they wouldn't be able to help themselves), but until they do so, they don't and cannot exist.

But honestly I'd rather they do the SoB justice and re-do them into a fully fledged army rather than an army limping along with a model range that has almost all been around since 2nd Ed. Make them into a proper fighting force worthy of a non-WD Codex, then worry about FemMarines.

 Meade wrote:
It's like complaining if you play a WW2 game that all the soldiers are dudes.

Actually I do make that complaint. WWII games are kind of boring. But that also might just be because I feel that way about historical re-enactment games and most of them are basically just that.

In 40k, for all its problems, you create new things. In WWII games, you try to re-live old things. It's probably also why I'm bored by the Horus Heresy.

 Melissia wrote:
Actually I do make that complaint.

Then play Soviets. They had women in their army.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
But GW has demonstrated their willingness to change the background whenever it's convenient, and "no female marines" is a fluff detail, not an inherent part of "genetically engineered super-soldiers in power armor" that can't be changed without destroying the entire concept.

It's a set-in-stone part of the universe that there are no female Marines. Saying "But they could change that!" is a cop-out, because they could change literally anything tomorrow. They could say that Ultramarines are red if they wanted. That all races use Lasguns. That Dub-Step is the major past-time of the Tyranids. They could even say that Marines don't even exist if they wanted to. The fact of the matter is that once you take away "But they could change it!" you're left with the solidly maintained and unchangeable (by any of us) fact that there are no female Marines that it has been specifically stated that the process of making Marines precludes the female gender.

There is no argument to be entered. There is no debate to be had. This is as a solid a 'fact' as one gets in 40K, alongside "Marines use Bolters" and the names of the four Chaos Gods.

Of course they could change it at a whim, but until such time as they do, there is simply no point in arguing otherwise.

Right, because GW has never taken any 'set-in-stone' aspect of the 40k universe and simply tossed it out the airlock.

Squats.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CajunMan550 wrote:
The problem with this argument is models are everyone's fantasy land. And personally in my fantasy land I want chicks in sexy armor with huge asses and bigol booobies. I want my space marines built like brickshit houses and I want my nurgle dude rotted to the core.

In other words, you want a fantasy land based around your desires that leaves no place for anyone who wants anything different, excluding a lot of potential players as a result. Thank you for proving my point very nicely.

kb305 wrote:
sisters should be more attractive/sexualized, not less, they look butch.

And people still believe there isn't a sexism problem...

This post is the type of thing that gets the negative reactions that a real appeal for equality doesn't.

Both CajunMan550 and kb305 express their preference for a particular kind of miniature and are told they are immoral for doing so.

This is a perfect example of self righteous moral imperialism.

Of course CajunMan550 wants a fantasy based on his desires. Is he supposed to want a fantasy based around yours instead? And then Peregrine misrepresents CajunMan550's position by adding "that leaves no place for anyone who wants anything different."

Can't you see Peregrine, that you are the one doing that? You are the one trying to condemn something other people like in order to leave no place for it? And you probably see yourself as a great moral champion for doing so.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Of course they could change it at a whim, but until such time as they do, there is simply no point in arguing otherwise.

But that's exactly what was being argued. I was replying to the idea that GW couldn't change it, not that the current fluff says it's impossible.

Peregrine - Fair enough. You won't find me arguing against that. I don't think GW would, but they certainly could change it.

 infinite_array wrote:
Right, because GW has never taken any 'set-in-stone' aspect of the 40k universe and simply tossed it out the airlock.

And tell me where I said that they had not or would not do that?

Oh that's right: I didn't.

Don't put words in my mouth.

agustin wrote:
Both CajunMan550 and kb305 express their preference for a particular kind of miniature and are told they are immoral for doing so.

They weren't told they're immoral.

Of course CajunMan550 wants a fantasy based on his desires. Is he supposed to want a fantasy based around yours instead? And then Peregrine misrepresents CajunMan550's position by adding "that leaves no place for anyone who wants anything different."

Oh yes, let's pretend that what he wants is just a mere 5% of the total models in the game, just a token few "chicks in sexy armor with huge asses and bigol booobies" so that he can be happy, and not a game in which "chicks in sexy armor with huge asses and bigol booobies" is the default and everything else is excluded.

You are the one trying to condemn something other people like in order to leave no place for it?

How is "this should be a minor part of the game", which is what I've clearly said it should be, the same thing as "this should be banned and everyone who likes it is immoral"?

 Melissia wrote:

 Meade wrote:
It's like complaining if you play a WW2 game that all the soldiers are dudes.

Actually I do make that complaint. WWII games are kind of boring. But that also might just be because I feel that way about historical re-enactment games and most of them are basically just that.

Well there you go. My point is, if I read a Jane Austen novel, it pretty much goes without saying that much like playing a WW2 game, if I'm going to enjoy this I'll have to put myself in the shoes of the opposite sex. When women play wargames it's mostly like men reading Jane Austen novels.

That explains why 40k is slightly friendlier to women than historicals (hard as that may be to imagine...). There is more of a roleplaying element to 40k and more access to female characters if you play the right race.

 Melissia wrote:

 Meade wrote:
On the Cain subject... yes, strangely that makes sense. A lot of sense.

On advertising to girls like they're retards... well, as a young boy a lot of people tried to convince me that there was a fat man who came down the chimney to give me presents and he flew in a sled pulled by reindeer. So I don't think it's entirely gender-specific. The pink-blue thing is rather obviously made up by culture and it goes both ways.

You don't understand the full extent of it, then. I really recommend you read through those two links I gave, if you want to understand my low opinion about the expertise and intelligence of the advertising industry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
Anyway, here's the dealio: It's not possible for there to be female marines.

If GW wanted to change it, it's possible. Just like with every other part of the lore.

The question isn't "can", it's "should".

So what? They could choose tomorrow to make all Sisters of battle look like Repentia, and make it so that Sisters cruise hive worlds looking to get laid. Doesn't mean it will happen. Although much to your chagrin, I imagine that they'd sell much better.

As HBMC said, just because they can doesn't mean they will. Until they change the fluff, female marines are impossible. Nevermind the logistics, etc. but it won't happen.

 Ouze wrote:
Please, tell me more of how, in this make believe background where space marines have 2 hearts and can spit acid, that these pretend organs won't work.

I'm sure you could write fluff to make anything you want work and you're welcome to do so. Personally I don't like the idea of female Space Marines because I see Space Marines as the ultimate elite where no weakness could be accepted, behemoths with so much bone and muscle mass that even without armour they could shrug off blows that would kill a lesser human. Like it or not, men at the most elite level are bigger and stronger than women at the most elite level. Any form of athletics has a womens and a mens division not because of sexism, but because if it weren't then there'd be no women in many events (and perhaps some where there'd be no men).

Now I have no problem with female armies or Sisters of Battle, it just doesn't sit with me that a Marine chapter would recruit females to begin with. Now obviously you could make fluff about certain females being the physical equal of males in the far future (and they'd probably look like men anyway, what was Gimli's joke in the LOTR movies? Dwarf women are often mistaken for Dwarf men because they look so similar? lol).

EDIT: There are most certainly armies where women fit alongside men. Eldar do have female models alongside male models. I just don't think it fits for an army like Space Marines and would feel extremely forced if they did have females. And forced as in shoehorned, not forced as in prison, bend over I'm gonna shove this stick in your pooper.

I'm totally against GW adding female cadians to the basic box. They will cut the amount to five IG and rise the price on account of then new "added value" heads/torsos.
Who am I kidding? I no longer buy GW stuff so they can do whatever they want with their stuff, but forcing them to add females because they MUST is the wrong way to approach the sexism issue.
Also spreading the antics of online troglodites to other people just because we share the same gender is not the best option if you want us regular well mannered gamers to support giving women more chances to enjoy wargaming/rpging and similar games.

M.

I have cringed my way through this entire thread.

So, basically, people with no knowledge of marketing are telling multinational corporations about the massive amounts of money they are missing out on in the "untapped market" of women who want to play Warhams but are being kept away by sexism.

Write a proposal, pitch it to GW, and prove my smug dismissal of your position wrong.

I dare you.

 Peregrine wrote:
[
They weren't told they're immoral.

...

How is "this should be a minor part of the game", which is what I've clearly said it should be, the same thing as "this should be banned and everyone who likes it is immoral"?

You used their posts as exemplars of sexism. Your only response to kb305 was "And people still believe there isn't a sexism problem..."

 Monster Rain wrote:
I have cringed my way through this entire thread.

So, basically, people with no knowledge of marketing are telling multinational corporations about the massive amounts of money they are missing out on in the "untapped market" of women who want to play Warhams but are being kept away by sexism.

Write a proposal, pitch it to GW, and prove my smug dismissal of your position wrong.

I dare you.

I actually don't think Warhammer or 40k are terribly sexist games. The problem seemed more with other games in the hobby that have more of that sort of thing. Though I'm sure someone can come and tell me I'm wrong and how warhammer and 40k are sexist.

 Meade wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Meade wrote:
It's like complaining if you play a WW2 game that all the soldiers are dudes.

Actually I do make that complaint. WWII games are kind of boring. But that also might just be because I feel that way about historical re-enactment games and most of them are basically just that.

Well there you go. My point is, if I read a Jane Austen novel, it pretty much goes without saying that much like playing a WW2 game, if I'm going to enjoy this I'll have to put myself in the shoes of the opposite sex. When women play wargames it's mostly like men reading Jane Austen novels.

That explains why 40k is slightly friendlier to women than historicals (hard as that may be to imagine...). There is more of a roleplaying element to 40k and more access to female characters if you play the right race.

Interesting note, Tom Kirby has stated that Jane Austen is his favorite author, 'splains a lot, don't it?

xraytango wrote:


Interesting note, Tom Kirby has stated that Jane Austen is his favorite author, 'splains a lot, don't it?

Yes. We are on to something here. Clearly there is a conspiracy to turn 40k into a Jane Austen novel .

 Monster Rain wrote:
I have cringed my way through this entire thread.

So, basically, people with no knowledge of marketing are telling multinational corporations about the massive amounts of money they are missing out on in the "untapped market" of women who want to play Warhams but are being kept away by sexism.

Write a proposal, pitch it to GW, and prove my smug dismissal of your position wrong.

I dare you.

Dunno, I'm not championing the "untapped" factor - poor choice of words if you ask me - but rather the idea that in a universe bereft with war, it doesn't seem sensible that:

A. Women are in the passenger's seat or even in the back seat when it comes to competency on the battlefield.
B. Women dress like domimatrix's and bikini models with atmoic bombs blowing up just out of lethal range from them.
C. Women don't really do much in the narrative apart from die, usually as horrible failures.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
[snip]

As usual, completely missing the point. The "can" vs "should" statement was the most important part of that post.

Can is the obvious thing. Of course they can. The more important question isn't "can they", it' "SHOULD they change the lore". I'm not touching that with a ten foot eviscerator, but I will argue that it really doesn't interrupt or damage or really do anything else to the lore at all to have fem-marines-- at best, it gives an option for a wider variety of interesting chapter cultures; at worst, it gives an option for a wider variety of BAD chapter cultures. But the overall feel and story for the Astartes wouldn't really change. What I really don't care all that much about is actually implementing the idea, because as I said, it wouldn't change the Astartes enough for me to bother liking them more than actual human beings in the settings.

Add fem-marines in, and I'd still prefer Guard and Sisters. I might buy some of the models if they're really good, though, maybe toss in a squad using allies rules, since it makes more tactical sense for Marines to act in support of the Guard anyway.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Dunno, I'm not championing the "untapped" factor - poor choice of words if you ask me - but rather the idea that in a universe bereft with war, it doesn't seem sensible that:

A. Women are in the passenger's seat or even in the back seat when it comes to competency on the battlefield.
B. Women dress like domimatrix's and bikini models with atmoic bombs blowing up just out of lethal range from them.
C. Women don't really do much in the narrative apart from die, usually as horrible failures.

I think you used bereft the wrong way. Anyway. There are many Eldar models that don't fit in to that category. Sisters of Battle don't fit in to that category.

The only real army I can think of that could have female models and doesn't is IG, and I expressed my opinion about that on the previous page.

I personally have no real problem with not having female IG guardsmen. They could be in there as commanders or pilots, but I don't think they fit in to my own personal vision of my base line IG grunts, as I mentioned on the previous page. Just because the universe is at war doesn't mean you throw every man, woman and child in to battle.

Even if you do feel IG should have female models, whoopty-friggin-do, there's tons of armies that are bereft of models which I think they should have.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Just because the universe is at war doesn't mean you throw every man, woman and child in to battle.

That's what the Imperium should be doing to combat the impending Tyranid invasion. At the point that the species is truly on the brink I don't think anyone's going to overlook normally non-combatants.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Even if you do feel IG should have female models, whoopty-friggin-do, there's tons of armies that are bereft of models which I think they should have.

Interestingly enough I believe that's what a lot of this ultimately boils down to. A desire for more models that people would like to see.

 Dentry wrote:
Interestingly enough I believe that's what a lot of this ultimately boils down to. A desire for more models that people would like to see.

That is pretty much exactly what this is, to me.