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.

Again, their authority is handed to them by a male figure, one who is viewed in a paternal light. The God-Emperor is the stern father who watches over all, sees all, and judges all. He punishes the wicked, the deviant and the corrupted. It is by His hand and His word that any ruler, anywhere in the Imperium, derives their power... and, as we saw in the Badab Rebellion, to go against His Word invites His retribution through His children who act in His name.

I think the problem here is we're conflating patriarchy with misogyny, which is understandable because all of our real-world patriarchies have always also been (eventually) misogynistic as well.

However, combining this with the rest of the fluff available to us, and partly due to the bias of the creators, it is implied that men take a more-active role in administration of the Imperium on every level. While, yes, there are female High Lords, female Inquisitors, female Planetary Governors, female Guardsmen, all-female IG Regiments, female starship captains, female Rogue Traders, the Adeptus Sororitas (if you want to talk about subservience to a male authority figure... they are the "Daughters of the Emperor", after all)... these continue to be outside of the norm. The "default equivalents" to all of these factions are male.

This is not to say that, on every world in the Imperium, property is held by the male, that sons inherit their father's name (rather than their mother's) or that women take the family names of their husbands, no. The Imperium is far too diverse to make that claim (though we have few examples of this *not* being the norm). However, again, these cultural variances, and the legitimacy they receive in the wider Imperium, is handed down by the Ultimate Father Figure.

And while, yes, I am focused on a single individual, rather than the gender in a broader sense, it is because for the Imperium, there is ever only one God-Emperor, and will only ever be one God-Emperor. The setting is frozen at that point in time, in that He will have no successor, and even if He is truly dead, and not a Warp-entity of some sort, the Imperium has never had a female "challenger" to His title as Lord and Master of the Imperium of Man.

Everything in the Imperium is the property of the God-Emperor. It all belongs to Him. If you possess it, it is because He allows you to possess it. If you create it, it still belongs to Him. He will use it as He sees fit, whether that be a lasgun, a tank, a shirt-button or your child. All is the Emperor's.

On any Imperial World, the cultural norms are set by the Imperial Creed, regardless of its local flavor. Even a planet that is matrilinial is so because that is in accordance with the will of the God-Emperor. He has allowed them to be that way (and, as is true of most worlds, they will believe that their way is the way that He intended it to be).

While in Earthly societies, yes, there is a difference between a god and a ruler, that distinction does not exist in the Imperium. Just ask Huron Blackheart.

There is no in-universe evidence for men taking a more active role on every level, you're trying to approach the setting from a meta perspective, which does not work. GW is a bunch of pasty white guys, so that is what they write about. Some non-studio (Aka better) fluff is getting better about this though.

The God-Emperor is a patriarch only in the most technical of terms. Whether he has a hot dog or a taco is entirely incidental to why the Imperium reveres him.

I think the problem is not a conflation of patriarchy with misogyny (although this would be an interesting topic to discuss - both are forms of discrimination, so where would you draw the line between them?) but rather a conflation of an aspect of the ruler's physique with the entire culture of his realm.
I'd point to Manchu's argument with the queens once more, but you seem to be avoiding this comparison.

If one world is apparently venerating the Emperor as a deer or their sun, who's to say that there isn't another that venerates the Emperor as a woman? When it's apparently okay that the Emperor is worshipped as an animal, why would it be different to see him worshipped as a woman? And if the Ecclesiarchy is fine with that ... what role does the Emperor's gender have for the general Imperial populace at all? Here's a theory: None.

What would change if He was the God-Empress? Would the Imperium suddenly become a matriarchy?

Psienesis wrote:The "default equivalents" to all of these factions are male.

Says who?

Psienesis wrote:This is not to say that, on every world in the Imperium, property is held by the male, that sons inherit their father's name (rather than their mother's) or that women take the family names of their husbands, no. The Imperium is far too diverse to make that claim (though we have few examples of this *not* being the norm).

Which is why the Imperium does not qualify for being called "patriarchy" as defined by the dictionary.
We can't just make up our own definitions of these terms and expect them to be accepted without resistance.

Psienesis wrote:On any Imperial World, the cultural norms are set by the Imperial Creed, regardless of its local flavor.

Ah, but "local flavour" includes how the Emperor is perceived in that place - and the Imperial Creed says nothing about the role of women.

The Emperor could have just as easily been female, if the Shamens had chosen a female body to reincarnate in. Then the Primarchs would likely have been female, and so would space marines.

The Emperor's sex has no relevance. It doesn't make the Imperium male orientated. Nobody could come close to what he was. His gender really had no meaning by the time the Imperium was founded.

I'm pretty sure the Emperor's mastery of biomancy could let him be whatever gender he wanted anyway.

Yes, even that one.

He probably defaults to male because that's what he was born with.

This is probably as close to the Emperor as you'll get in another setting:



EDIT: fixed

 Daba wrote:
This is probably as close to the Emperor as you'll get in another setting:

Not quite, look up strike Legion.

There they have an immortal God Empress of mankind.

Of course Strike Legion heavily parodies 40k amongst other scifi.

 Lynata wrote:
I'd point to Manchu's argument with the queens once more, but you seem to be avoiding this comparison.

Just to clarify, I was cribbing K_K. And I believe the argument actually goes, the reign of either Elizabeth or Victoria doesn't say anything about the presence or absence of patriarchy in their societies precisely because they are quasi-exceptional. Look at it this way, Elizabeth II is safeguarding her father's line rather than her own. This is because European monarchy is traditionally agnatic; a Queen's descent is traced via her father's rather than her mother's line.

When it comes to the Imperium, as Psinesis pointed out, all authority is traced "patrilinearly" from the Emperor.

 Lynata wrote:
What would change if He was the God-Empress? Would the Imperium suddenly become a matriarchy?

Arguably, yes.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
The God-Emperor is a patriarch only in the most technical of terms. Whether he has a hot dog or a taco is entirely incidental to why the Imperium reveres him.

Not quite. First, it is important that he is human. Second, he is the master of mankind, the founder and ruler of the Imperium of Man. Again, the way the setting is presented is important here.

Manchu wrote:Just to clarify, I was cribbing K_K. And I believe the argument actually goes, the reign of either Elizabeth or Victoria doesn't say anything about the presence or absence of patriarchy in their societies precisely because they are quasi-exceptional. Look at it this way, Elizabeth II is safeguarding her father's line rather than her own. This is because European monarchy is traditionally agnatic; a Queen's descent is traced via her father's rather than her mother's line.

Exactly. Just like the God-Emperor is exceptional, in that he "just is". He has no line, and there is no succession - and if there were, I'd argue that the Imperium would place much more emphasis on who was born first, rather than gender. Just like with Elizabeth or Victoria, the Emperor's presence too doesn't say anything about the presence or absence of patriarchy in the culture he reigns over.

Manchu wrote:When it comes to the Imperium, as Psinesis pointed out, all authority is traced "patrilinearly" from the Emperor.

patrilinear
based on or tracing descent through the male line; "a patrilineal society"
in a straight unbroken line of descent from parent to child; "lineal ancestors"; "lineal heirs"; "a direct descendant of the king"; "direct heredity"

-> No. All authority is derived from the Emperor's position as their god, not as the first male child of some predecessor.

Manchu wrote:Arguably, yes.

Not according to the dictionaries.

 Lynata wrote:
just like the God-Emperor is exceptional

Not really -- unlike either Elizabeth or Victoria, the Emperor is the founder of the political system in question. It's like saying the very first king of England was not part of patriarchal system just because he was first.

 Lynata wrote:
He has no line, and there is no succession

This is both true and false. There is no succession because he still reigns as the Master of Mankind. But there is a (kind of) line, as both K-K and Psinesis have pointed out.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
GW is a bunch of pasty white guys, so that is what they write about.

Yep, this is getting to the heart of it. The paritarchal notions of the writers, unconcious or otherwise, color the setting they create.

Manchu wrote:It's like saying the very first king of England was not part of patriarchal system just because he was first.

Only because his kingship was built upon a patriarchal foundation, though.
Which we still have no indication for as far as the Imperium in 40k is concerned.

It is another good example for why the ruler alone does not define whether a system is patriarchal or matriarchal.

Manchu wrote:But there is a (kind of) line, as both K-K and Psinesis have pointed out.

A line needs two dots to connect.
The Emperor isn't a line, he is a fixture.

@Lynata: I think I have explained to you before that all the meaning of language is not encapsulated in denotative definitions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:But there is a (kind of) line, as both K-K and Psinesis have pointed out.

A line needs two dots to connect.
The Emperor isn't a line, he is a fixture.

I quite agree that the Emperor himself is not a line (and I applaud your visual analogy, btw). But the authority by which every leader in the Imperium acts is a line, from the Emperor to them.

Then we can only agree to disagree. If we cannot even agree on the official definition of a term, we lack the basis for a proper debate. :/

Manchu wrote:But the authority by which every leader in the Imperium acts is a line, from the Emperor to them.

Indeed, but this too has nothing to do with his gender. The Emperor "just is". I just don't see at all where the presence or absence of His Divine Wang would factor into it. The High Lords, which include women, ruling in his name and with equal nominal authority is testament to this. If there were some law as to "the Emperor is a man, hence all High Lords have to be men", it would be different - but this isn't the case.

That's as if I were to say that the Imperium is racist because the Emperor as depicted on the majority of images is white. Does this mean there are no black High Lords?

(thanks, btw )

 Lynata wrote:
the ruler alone does not define whether a system is patriarchal or matriarchal.

I'll try one last time before dropping it. Yes, the identity of a given ruler does not necessarily define everything else about the political system. The Imperium is a perfect example, however, of a case where the ruler does define everything else about the political system.

 Lynata wrote:
Then we can only agree to disagree. If we cannot even agree on the official definition of a term, we lack the basis for a proper debate.

"Official definition"? That's simply not how language works. All language is analogical, a heuristic for comparing concepts. For example, the word "patricarchy" as used in gender studies does not hinge on the presence of agnatic succession. Patrilinear in that context describes not the outright familial relation between a father and his children but the flow of power from men.

 Lynata wrote:
That's as if I were to say that the Imperium is racist because the Emperor as depicted on the majority of images is white.

To be honest, I have no problem with the notion that the Imperium is subtly but systematically racist given the presentation of the setting (which is not to say, just because the Emperor is white).

 Manchu wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
the ruler alone does not define whether a system is patriarchal or matriarchal.

I'll try one last time before dropping it. Yes, the identity of a given ruler does not necessarily define everything else about the political system. The Imperium is a perfect example, however, of a case where this is true.

How so?

A better question might be, how not so?

The Emperor is not only the pinnacle of the Imperial hierarchy, he is also it's beating heart. No one in the Imperium has the authority to do anything without it stemming from him.

Manchu wrote:I'll try one last time before dropping it. Yes, the identity of a given ruler does not necessarily define everything else about the political system. The Imperium is a perfect example, however, of a case where this is true.

Let's just drop it, then. Now you are basically saying "because that's how it is" and expect me to accept it.

Also, this discussion is moving too fast. Dakka needs a chat room.

Manchu wrote:"Official definition"? That's simply not how language works. All language is analogical, a heuristic for comparing concepts. For example, the word "patricarchy" as used in gender studies does not hinge on the presence of agnatic succession. Patrilinear in that context describes not the outright familial relation between a father and his children but the flow of power from men.

I partially agree, insofar as the comparing concepts is involved - however, this is why terms with multiple meanings have them in their respective dictionary entries. And you can't just "steal" a related term connected to one very specific meaning and try to apply it to another when this is not an established usage of the word (at least not without expecting resistance - language does evolve over time, of course).

Note also that the concept of patrilineality involves derivation not just from but through the male, which falls flat as soon as you have a female High Lord issueing commands. In essence, to continue my previous metaphor, the line must be straight and connect all dots, not make a weird bow circumventing all the females that "shouldn't" be there.
I just don't see how we could apply the concept of patrilineality to a political or military hierarchy where, at least going by the fluff I am used to, females in positions of power are nothing unusual.

 Lynata wrote:
you are basically saying "because that's how it is" and expect me to accept it

Not really ... nor in our many conversations have I ever done so ... hence the pages and pages of them!

 Lynata wrote:
this is why terms with multiple meanings have them in their respective dictionary entries

Dictionaries do not keep pace with the actual breadth of language (the so-called "lexicon"). They do not even try insofar as specialized usage goes, as with gender studies or feminist theory for example.

 Lynata wrote:
patrilineality involves derivation not just from but through the male

Incorrect. We've already talked about the English monarchy in this regard.

To reiterate, there doesn't need to be the fictional equivalent of a sign that reads "Welcome to the Imperium - This is a patriarchy" in order for it to be one. We certainly have no such signs in contemporary Western societies (we try to establish many signs that say the opposite even). And yet these societies are arguably patriarchal, despite a significant number of women in leadership position, because power flows preferentially from and to men.

 Lynata wrote:
I think the problem is not a conflation of patriarchy with misogyny (although this would be an interesting topic to discuss - both are forms of discrimination, so where would you draw the line between them?) but rather a conflation of an aspect of the ruler's physique with the entire culture of his realm.
I'd point to Manchu's argument with the queens once more, but you seem to be avoiding this comparison.

The comparison doesn't hold. Queen Victoria inherited her throne through her male ancestry and was succeeded by her son. Her authority was shared with her husband (while he was alive, and to whom she surrendered much of it while pregnant with their 9 children) and was derived from the authority of the British Crown. The God-Emperor became the Emperor of Mankind through his own actions, and has no successor, and, indeed, will never have a successor. His authority is derived, directly, from who he was and what he did. Imperial culture extends from its religio-political beliefs. That the culture is based on the Creed, which is based on veneration of the God-Emperor, is all that really needs be said.

 Lynata wrote:
If one world is apparently venerating the Emperor as a deer or their sun, who's to say that there isn't another that venerates the Emperor as a woman? When it's apparently okay that the Emperor is worshipped as an animal, why would it be different to see him worshipped as a woman? And if the Ecclesiarchy is fine with that ... what role does the Emperor's gender have for the general Imperial populace at all? Here's a theory: None.

In that we have no evidence that there is a world in which the God-Emperor has been worshiped as a woman, rather than as a stag, a lion, a bear, or whatever other masculine totem-animal they choose. Moreover, in the events of tales where the God-Emperor is referred to in some other manner, by some other name, it is has always been presented as masculine (Sky-Father, All-Father, etc.). Even on these "pagan" worlds, veneration of the God-Emperor seems to be male-centric.

 Lynata wrote:

Psienesis wrote:The "default equivalents" to all of these factions are male.

Says who?

Oh, don't be silly now. The default IG is the male Cadians. The default Sisters faction is the Space Marines. The default unit for just about everything in the Imperium is male... we had a 48-page topic on this.

 Lynata wrote:

Psienesis wrote:This is not to say that, on every world in the Imperium, property is held by the male, that sons inherit their father's name (rather than their mother's) or that women take the family names of their husbands, no. The Imperium is far too diverse to make that claim (though we have few examples of this *not* being the norm).

Which is why the Imperium does not qualify for being called "patriarchy" as defined by the dictionary.
We can't just make up our own definitions of these terms and expect them to be accepted without resistance.

Given that we don't have concrete evidence of this in either direction, and yet we have rather a lot of evidence in other aspects that rather state, explicitly or by heavy implication, that the Imperium is arranged under the patriarchal figure of the God-Emperor, and that we can further extrapolate that marriage ceremonies are arranged through the agency of the Ecclesiarchy (which, being Space-Catholicism, is a patriarchal organization), I think that it is safe to say that, even on matrilinial worlds, this custom is maintained with the blessing of the God-Emperor, through His agents in the Ecclesiarchy and the Administratum. As has been touched on, a patriarchy does not need to be misogynist. It also does not need to be maintained from top to bottom, not when the very top of the line is patriarchal in aspect, in practice and in deed.

Given the Real-World tendency for patriarchies to drift to misogyny, I think it safe to say that, while the Imperium is not a specifically misogynistic society (either universally or merely typically), it can be safe to say that the patriarchal tendencies of what appear to be the "averages" of Imperial Culture (Space-Catholicism, 1840s blue-collar British society... life on a Forge or Hive World is Dickensian in its horrors... etc.) are probably "the norm". A female member of society can still be allowed to be all she can be, reach any position of authority that is within the reach of someone of her talents and social standing (or just raw talent, should she be an Underhiver who proves herself useful to an Inquisitor, regardless of the Inquisitor's gender) and yet still live in a society where the male is viewed as the head-of-household, family lineage is traced through the paternal line, and traditional gender roles are still somewhat enforced, socially, not by actual writ of law. It may even be possible for a woman in such a society to take over ruling a powerful trade-house, a Rogue Trader dynasty, or whatever, and yet still be expected to conform to some patriarchal conventions (such as how various Egyptian Queens would tie those gold and lapis lazuli fake beards on during state functions, it's a symbol of state, and stands as an example of a non-misogynist, patriarchal society.).

 Lynata wrote:

Psienesis wrote:On any Imperial World, the cultural norms are set by the Imperial Creed, regardless of its local flavor.

Ah, but "local flavour" includes how the Emperor is perceived in that place - and the Imperial Creed says nothing about the role of women.

As we lack a full copy of the Imperial Creed we can't really say that, though in *most* depictions of the Ecclesiarchy we have.... we have female members of the Ecclesiarchy being seconded to higher-ranking male priests. And then there was Vandire. And Sebastian Thor. Yes, Dominica was a woman, but, again, the Sisterhood *began* as an organization subservient to the concept of the God-Emperor. Further cementing His place as the patriarchal authority figure is the fact that they called themselves the "Daughters of the Emperor".

 Manchu wrote:
A better question might be, how not so?

The Emperor is not only the pinnacle of the Imperial hierarchy, he is also it's beating heart. No one in the Imperium has the authority to do anything without it stemming from him.

They only SAY the authority stems from him. It doesn't ACTUALLY stem from him. The Emperor doesn't personally appoint each High Lords of Terra. The Emperor doesn't give personal approval of commands. He doesn't even veto anything. Not anything that can be proven, at least. Allegedly he ordered the ringing of the bell of souls for the Fire Hawks, ...allegedly. And something happened with Dominica when she met him, but for all we know, maybe she learned some dark secret like he doesn't exist and decided to keep it.

That said, even if the Emperor is still active or if that explanation doesn't suit you, there's also the fact that the Emperor, according to the Eccesiarchy, wouldn't even count as male according to a core tenet of the Imperial Creed that states he ascended humanity after he was placed on the golden throne. Once you ascend humanity, you are effectively genderless. At least according to the wikia, even the line about male priests doing better than female priests is because the Emperor's "embodied form was that of a male", not "the Emperor was a male". (That's a HUGE difference when most versions of the creed state he left his embodied form behind when he ascended to the golden throne to become a god. The Imperial Creed article specifically states that a core tenant is "◾That the God-Emperor of Mankind once walked among men in their form and that He is and always has been the one, true God of humanity. "Once walked" means he doesn't, anymore).

Therefore, you can't call the Imperium a patriarchy because authority stems from the Emperor because you can't really call the Emperor a male. (note also that "He" is capitalized in that tenet, implying that the word "He" is meant more as a word used to refer to the Emperor rather than to denote any gender)

Whether directly or indirectly, all authority in the Imperium flows from the Emperor. And he is certainly male.

 Manchu wrote:
Whether directly or indirectly, all authority in the Imperium flows from the Emperor. And he is certainly male.

His embodied form was male. The line specifically states "embodied form"

Whether the God-Emperor actually exists outside of the shriveled corpse on the Golden-Throne is a matter for debate outside of the focus of this thread. That said, the authority under which the Administratum, the Inquisition, the Munitorum, the High Lords, etc. all operate is that which was handed to them by decree of the Emperor while he walked amongst mortals.

 Psienesis wrote:
Whether the God-Emperor actually exists outside of the shriveled corpse on the Golden-Throne is a matter for debate outside of the focus of this thread. That said, the authority under which the Administratum, the Inquisition, the Munitorum, the High Lords, etc. all operate is that which was handed to them by decree of the Emperor while he walked amongst mortals.

Is that what you mean?

Well, just because the writers of the constitution were all male would not, by itself, make America a patriarchal society.

Likewise, just because the Emperor laid the groundwork for the Imperium by his decree would not make the Imperium a patriarchal society either.

TiamatRoar wrote:
the line specifically states

The line on a wiki? Anyway, it doesn't matter. Whatever is going on with the Emperor in M41-42, no one refers to him as "her" or "it."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TiamatRoar wrote:
Well, just because the writers of the constitution were all male would not, by itself, make America a patriarchal society.

Actually, it pretty damn good evidence that the colonies were patriarchal. That all of our histrico-mythical national heroes remain "great men" even today, despite mainstreaming feminist critques of this, is evidence that the US remains patriarchal. Now, with 40k, the Emperor was male at the beginning and remains male right through the "present." As Lynata mentioned, he's a fixture. And so is his gender.

No one refers to Tzeentch, Khorne, or Nurgle as her or it, either, However, they are in effect actually genderless.

(actually, they're arguably female since they're capable of giving birth)

TiamatRoar wrote:
No one refers to Tzeentch, Khorne, or Nurgle as her or it, either, However, they are in effect actually genderless.

(actually, they're arguably female since they're capable of giving birth)

Their gender is analogical, same as your comparison of the genesis of deamons to giving birth. By contrast, the Emperor's gender is literal.

TiamatRoar wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Whether the God-Emperor actually exists outside of the shriveled corpse on the Golden-Throne is a matter for debate outside of the focus of this thread. That said, the authority under which the Administratum, the Inquisition, the Munitorum, the High Lords, etc. all operate is that which was handed to them by decree of the Emperor while he walked amongst mortals.

Is that what you mean?

Well, just because the writers of the constitution were all male would not, by itself, make America a patriarchal society.

Likewise, just because the Emperor laid the groundwork for the Imperium by his decree would not make the Imperium a patriarchal society either.

Uh... America *is* a patriarchal society!

 Manchu wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:
No one refers to Tzeentch, Khorne, or Nurgle as her or it, either, However, they are in effect actually genderless.

(actually, they're arguably female since they're capable of giving birth)

Their gender is analogical, same as your comparison of the genesis of deamons to giving birth. By contrast, the Emperor's gender is literal.

Only while he was human. Today in the Imperium, saying "The Emperor is a man" instead of "The Emperor was a man" will get you executed for Heresy if you aren't a Space Marine.

The phrase/sentiment you're thinking of is "the Emperor is only a man."