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.
This entire argument is ridiculous because it assumes that GW is out to grow their market share when it is very obvious that their goal is to continue to milk the community they have left.
I personal could not care less one war or another because if you want to run female guard there are tons of awesome third party minis that you can purchase, why do you need GW to do it for you? Also consider that NONE of the recent GW kits have been for armies where this conversation is even relevant. If they release a new Cadian box set then by all means, they can add in a few female heads to go along with it. Most of the new kits they add today are just giant robots or Space Marines and yes, Space Marines COULD be female but as someone else posted, they fluff says they aren't so...they aren't. The fluff could change but then it would just be pandering and does that really count as a win?
Hell if people who get bent out of shape about this actually took a second to look at what they are complaining about they would realize that one of the most recent infantry boxes released was the Harlequin Troupe and that box has a 50/50 split male to female.
EDIT:
In fact, looking over the army list the only army I really see this being relevant for is the Imperial Guard. The Imperial Guard is the only army missing this kind of diversity where it is possible, every other army that fields men and women have models for both. Yes Sisters need an update, as one of my main armies I would love to see them in plastic but this has more to do with GW being bad at making their customers happy than misogyny.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/24 14:30:55
The US just changed its policy and pretty soon we are going to have females in the infantry but I have a feeling that the next time a republican comes to power they will repeal this. If not then the US just became a lot weaker in its combat arms.
This is ridiculous. As a combat arms officer I'm offended that you would think that our branches are weaker because we allow women the equal opportunity to fight for their country like their male counterparts.
Sorry I couldn't let that go.
On topic I'm of the opinion that I couldn't care less. There would be no change to my enjoyment of this hobby one way or the other. That said I am annoyed by the self righteousness people like the author of this article have.
I think he is referencing the fact that they lower the standards for physical traditionally male jobs so females get in. Like they did with the firefighters, for example. I do have a problem with any standard being lowered in the name of diversity.
If not, that's bad. I don't have a problem with female models but most of my armies are marine or xenos so it doesn't effect me. Can you not paint your space marines or guardsmen to be black?
Women are harder. I'm not sure if all my Eldar are male, I know some aren't, and I know marines are traditionally male (don't they have to be because reasons?).
Also mary sue? I thought Mary Sue was a character who can do it all and save the day. What has this to do with female space marines?
/tg/ is the part of 4chan that looks at tabletop games.
Mary Sue is the name of the website, just like how DakkaDakka is the name of a website. The article doesn't have to be related in any way to a Mary Sue, just like how an article here doesn't have to be linked to the sound of guns firing.
Thank you, no wonder the article didn't make any sense to me in the beginning. I was thinking of the Mary Sue stereo type.
Akiasura wrote: I think he is referencing the fact that they lower the standards for physical traditionally male jobs so females get in. Like they did with the firefighters, for example. I do have a problem with any standard being lowered in the name of diversity.
If not, that's bad. I don't have a problem with female models but most of my armies are marine or xenos so it doesn't effect me. Can you not paint your space marines or guardsmen to be black?
Women are harder. I'm not sure if all my Eldar are male, I know some aren't, and I know marines are traditionally male (don't they have to be because reasons?).
I'm very glad that I can dispel the idea that we are lowering standards to accommodate women. Because that's not true at all.
Again moving back from topical issues to the pretend future ones, Marines I believe can't be women due to some biologic process involving their transformation.
Perhaps in the army, I did hear a news report about something like that happening with Rangers I believe, but with fire fighters it is happening.
It's kinda a bs reason as far as marines go....don't the marines have their sex organs pretty much stop working all together? I don't see why it wouldn't work with females.
This is ridiculous. As a combat arms officer I'm offended that you would think that our branches are weaker because we allow women the equal opportunity to fight for their country like their male counterparts.
Thank you for your service, lieutenant. I think your mind might change on this subject the first time a 120 lb. woman attempts to drag your 200 lb. frame into cover when you're wounded. If women wish to be in frontline combat units, then they need to meet the same physical standards as men.
The ONLY reason the army is opening combat arms MOSs to women is that there's a culture in all of the armed services that promotion slots are more plentiful and more preferred by those with crossed rifles, or crossed sabers, or crossed arrows on their lapel than all of the other "lesser" branches that get those guys where they need to be or bring them their food and ammo so they can keep fighting. This is about getting more women into the higher echelons of the service and affording them the same EO chances as the male soldiers. I'm not at all against this, but their method for achieving this equality is flawed. Combat is not the place for feelsy, equality initiatives.
Talys wrote: I just couldn't bring myself to read the whole article -- it's just silly.
If you want to play a game with more female models.... play a game with more female models. I can't believe this guy spent as much time as he did writing that article, lol.
A letterwriting campaign to GW is not going to get them to make more female models O.O
As an aside: can you please edit the title? The word is "relevant". TY
I like how for you improving a game is considered a waste of time. I suppose you consider the Proposed Rules sections has a complete idiocy. You have just lost your right to criticise any model or rules produced by Games Workshop or any other company. If you do (and we both know you did it on this forum page), that would make you hypocrite (and maybe show a bit of internalised sexism at the same time). If you want better rules, play a different game. If you think those kinds of article never brought any changes, its time for you to open a history book or a newspaper. That's exactly how you fight racism, classism, sexism and homophobia. You criticise it and you gather people provoke some changes. Sometimes it fails, sometimes it don't. But, I would not criticise a man for trying. You want better models, buy product from another company.
This is ridiculous. As a combat arms officer I'm offended that you would think that our branches are weaker because we allow women the equal opportunity to fight for their country like their male counterparts.
Thank you for your service, lieutenant. I think your mind might change on this subject the first time a 120 lb. woman attempts to drag your 200 lb. frame into cover when you're wounded. If women wish to be in frontline combat units, then they need to meet the same physical standards as men.
The ONLY reason the army is opening combat arms MOSs to women is that there's a culture in all of the armed services that promotion slots are more plentiful and more preferred by those with crossed rifles, or crossed sabers, or crossed arrows on their lapel than all of the other "lesser" branches that get those guys where they need to be or bring them their food and ammo so they can keep fighting. This is about getting more women into the higher echelons of the service and affording them the same EO chances as the male soldiers. I'm not at all against this, but their method for achieving this equality is flawed. Combat is not the place for feelsy, equality initiatives.
Sure. As someone who is dealing with this new adjustment almost daily we are taking steps to make sure it's not just "well women can be combat arms, just throw them in anywhere". The army is taking steps to ensure that the process goes smoothly. They also are doing things like Soldier 20/20 to make sure that fitness standards are not sacrificed. On the topic of the Ranger school graduates, I can assure you that the Rangers are NOT going to allow anyone who doesn't meet the standards to graduate. I'll be going to Ranger school in two months and have had many a talk with the current commander of the Ranger Training Brigade. I think it's indicative of the army as a whole, that standards are not going to be brought down to facilitate the move of women to combat. Just think, there are plenty of men in the armed forces who are either so out of shape that they cannot perform at an adequate level or they are very small in physique who are able to be in combat simply by the nature of them being men.
And while this discussion seems off topic about things that don't matter, I think it is relevant in that it just gives more reasons why the game is possibly making a mistake in not creating even a few heads or bitz with the intent to show women.
Since when did GW not making female soldier figures for their far future science fantasy wargame imply the US Infantry are in danger of collapse due to low standards of strength and fitness?
In other words, let's get back to the topic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/24 17:02:54
Firstly 40k setting was set up in the 80's, where it was rare if not simply unseen to have female soldiers on the field, except maybe for a few country, so the mind set is that, outside somekind of Cyberpunk fantasy setting where you would have cyborg vixens with chrome tits and whips, there was no female, period, other time other mind.
Now the view on this as greatly changed through the decades, but like we know, GW simply suck at updating his model line.
Also claiming that there is no explanation for no female SM, then giving the (flash version) of the explanation, saying its scientific, but since 40k is a made up world, so the science isn't real, and thus we shouldn't take the explanation giving, is the stupidest joke i've heard fo a while...
Also not enough females?, Sistas, Eldars?, Deamonettes if you like that.
So what have we next to this?, Orks?, doesn't reproduce by sexual means, no need for females.
Crons?, they're was females, but they din't see the need to make chrome tits on the Necron bodies.
Nids?, Nids are kinda asexual excepte for the Queen.
Taus can arguably include females, since whne you look at Shadowsun there is not much difference with another Tau, so you can go and say" yeh half my Tau cadre are females" and no one would bat an eye.
AdMech and Skitarii?, all their flesh is replaced by bionics anyway.
Leaves the rest of the Imperium factions, where there is a few Female characters here and there; Inquisitors, Assassins etc.
So yeah GW might throw in some female looking bits in a futur re-model for Guards model line, and what would that change in the game franckly?
In the novels and video games you have lot of strong or important female figures, on the table top i don't see what would change from it.
GW were quite happy to produce Eshers for Necromunda. They were also responsible for Orcs with boobs and Dark Eldar Slave models.
I was always surprised that the Valhallan range didn't have any female minis. Tank commanders and commissars would have been perfect for them. The Vostroyans could have had a nice range of mink coated Tsarinas to lead and pray for them.
The Praetorians should have had a General called Victoria.
Would Mag urruk Thrakka count? Bearing in mind what he/she/it is based upon?
Not that it would sway my purchasing too much but having some female representation on the battlefields of the 41st millennium would be okay
The US just changed its policy and pretty soon we are going to have females in the infantry but I have a feeling that the next time a republican comes to power they will repeal this. If not then the US just became a lot weaker in its combat arms.
This is ridiculous. As a combat arms officer I'm offended that you would think that our branches are weaker because we allow women the equal opportunity to fight for their country like their male counterparts.
Sorry I couldn't let that go.
On topic I'm of the opinion that I couldn't care less. There would be no change to my enjoyment of this hobby one way or the other. That said I am annoyed by the self righteousness people like the author of this article have.
Well General Kelly disagrees with you, and I'll take his opinion over yours. For one he was a marine with over 3 decades of active duty service and 3 combat tours, for another he knew that if he voiced his opinion he would get kicked out of the USMC so he waited until his retirement came around.
Standards will fall and anyone who has experience in the military knows that. As it stands the physical fitness test for females is significantly less for females then males. Which makes sense because whenever it was time to do something extremely strenuous like humping 18 miles for a Comm Ex the females wouldn't be overly burdened with the Radios, batteries, extra ammo or crew served weapons (IE 240-249) So I guess making the standards lower for them makes sense in that way.
Anyway back to plastic figurines. The entire article is bogus because its premise is that the game is sexist because the IG don't have female models. Even though that magical faction called "Sisters Of Battle" which is exclusively female. I understand the anger at sisters. They are one of maybe 2 codex's that haven't received as much love as my Orks. The fact that they are metal is a big deal as well. On the plus side though, they have really good rules still and some pretty over the top units like the Organ tank (Whatever the hell its called) which shoots D6 S8 ap2 missiles. Thats pretty nice.
So relevant is not an appropriate title for this thread, a better title would be "Guy wants Female IG and new rules for SoB". Both of those I am fine with so long as he comes out and says it like that instead of feigning outrage over the fact that the game isn't more gender/racially diverse.
The US just changed its policy and pretty soon we are going to have females in the infantry but I have a feeling that the next time a republican comes to power they will repeal this. If not then the US just became a lot weaker in its combat arms.
This is ridiculous. As a combat arms officer I'm offended that you would think that our branches are weaker because we allow women the equal opportunity to fight for their country like their male counterparts.
Sorry I couldn't let that go.
LOL. missed that post originally. You are right: the supposition that having female infantry makes the a fighting force weaker is ludicrous
Going back to a time period when physical attributes were much more important than they are today, nobody would accuse the Vikings of being suboptimally effective, right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/24 19:12:04
The US just changed its policy and pretty soon we are going to have females in the infantry but I have a feeling that the next time a republican comes to power they will repeal this. If not then the US just became a lot weaker in its combat arms.
This is ridiculous. As a combat arms officer I'm offended that you would think that our branches are weaker because we allow women the equal opportunity to fight for their country like their male counterparts.
Sorry I couldn't let that go.
LOL. missed that post originally. You are right: the supposition that having female infantry makes the a fighting force weaker is ludicrous
Going back to a time period when physical attributes were much more important than they are today, nobody would accuse the Vikings of being suboptimally effective, right?
The word Viking isn't the name of a people but is instead the name for a profession. When the danes or the Norse would go raiding they would call this going "Viking". As far as female vikings? They had the stories of Shield Maidens but historically only a few accounts are given of any. Unfortunately they are in the same category as saga's and poems. And to this day there is a scholarly debate about whether or not the Norse/Danes even used Shield Maidens or if it was just a poem. I would argue that a handful were definitely in battle but nowhere near enough to base your assumption on.
And it is not so much a guess that it will make the military weaker then it is a hard fact. The Israeli's only have 2 units of female infantry and they are mechanized and guard the safest borders. Also the units are about 70% female I believe (this is going on memory at this point). The Israeli's experimented with mixed gender units and found it was terrible in most situations which is why they got rid of most of them.
I love the Mary Sue! They have such cool articles. This one was pretty cool to read... could have been written a little better... but a cool piece regardless.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: I personal could not care less one war or another because if you want to run female guard there are tons of awesome third party minis that you can purchase, why do you need GW to do it for you?
Why do we need GW to do anything for us? Why do we need dozens of different marine kits instead of having a single power armor kit and letting people buy third-party miniatures and conversion parts?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer le boucher wrote: Also claiming that there is no explanation for no female SM, then giving the (flash version) of the explanation, saying its scientific, but since 40k is a made up world, so the science isn't real, and thus we shouldn't take the explanation giving, is the stupidest joke i've heard fo a while...
The point is that there are two separate questions here:
1) Why, according to GW's current fluff, are there no female marines?
and
2) Why doesn't GW make female marines?
"Because the geneseed doesn't work that way" is a valid answer to the first question, but not the second. It's no more than "a space wizard did it" or "because GW said so", and doesn't explain anything about whyGW made that decision and should or should not change it. So no, we shouldn't accept in-universe fluff explanations as a response to a suggestion that GW should change their fluff.
So what have we next to this?, Orks?, doesn't reproduce by sexual means, no need for females.
And yet they're given masculine features, referred to with male pronouns, etc.
Taus can arguably include females, since whne you look at Shadowsun there is not much difference with another Tau, so you can go and say" yeh half my Tau cadre are females" and no one would bat an eye.
Not much difference =/= no difference at all. Why settle for mediocre kits and having to pretend that half your Tau are female when you can hold GW to a higher standard and demand actual female parts?
AdMech and Skitarii?, all their flesh is replaced by bionics anyway.
So why not have female bodies replaced with bionics instead of only male bodies? If it doesn't make any difference then there's no reason for them to be all-male.
So yeah GW might throw in some female looking bits in a futur re-model for Guards model line, and what would that change in the game franckly?
What does it change on the table to have any aesthetic variation? Why do we need non-Cadian guardsmen, dozens of different power armored marines with different chapter symbols, etc?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/24 23:53:18
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
For the admech how would you make them feminine in any way. We can't see any of the units faces, they chop off the legs and arms in most cases. I'm guessing any other gender identifing traits such as larger hip, breasts would also get cut.
I don't think it's really an issue, I mean the IG could probably use some female heads in their model line, but the Imperium in terms of fluff is pretty backwards, to the point that it almost makes sense they'd have gender divides like they do in the higher ranks. The only reason it doesn't make sense in the IG itself because the IG is just a massive amount of conscripts that they throw at things when they can, so it's not like the Ad Mech or Space Marines who are a lot more picky and can discriminate. Though I guess you could also make a case that all the females get shipped off to Sororitas, but that would be a huge number considering how many conscripts the IG gets as a whole.
More so, we can at least assume that GW isn't currently sexist (they might have been a product of their time when they first released the game but things have obviously changed) because as the author mentioned the Tau don't have a discrimination of gender, with their primary general being female (Shadowsun) and their kits do come with female heads for things like the Ghostkeel. So we can see that an army that doesn't base its views off fanatical dogma and superstition, but rather merit, includes a lot of female representation.
Let's be real here, the Space Marines for the most part aren't the good guys, and the Imperium as a whole is pretty xenophobic as a whole, not just based on our assumptions but it's stated quite often that they're openly bigoted. So it's not a surprise they'd have sexism in their faction too, they just have those negative aspects of humanity. On the other hand, idealized factions like that Tau, who aren't affected by such things clearly show that there isn't necessarily a deeper issue at play, simply that the Imperium is just not a very good place to be :/.
HoundsofDemos wrote: For the admech how would you make them feminine in any way. We can't see any of the units faces, they chop off the legs and arms in most cases. I'm guessing any other gender identifing traits such as larger hip, breasts would also get cut.
Don't they also like cover the bodies in a gel like substance beneath the armour to keep them ticking if they haven't been fully converted? Not to mention that they saw off the legs for tradition and then replace them before the lobotomies and other things... Yea, the Ad Mech are pretty gross with how they do things.
Oh and that gel is made from recycled bodily fluids of the person wearing the armour /wrech.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/25 02:39:07
Slayer le boucher wrote: Also claiming that there is no explanation for no female SM, then giving the (flash version) of the explanation, saying its scientific, but since 40k is a made up world, so the science isn't real, and thus we shouldn't take the explanation giving, is the stupidest joke i've heard fo a while...
The point is that there are two separate questions here:
1) Why, according to GW's current fluff, are there no female marines?
and
2) Why doesn't GW make female marines?
"Because the geneseed doesn't work that way" is a valid answer to the first question, but not the second. It's no more than "a space wizard did it" or "because GW said so", and doesn't explain anything about whyGW made that decision and should or should not change it. So no, we shouldn't accept in-universe fluff explanations as a response to a suggestion that GW should change their fluff.
One problem is that GW seems to be terrified of trying to change any of the lore that they have written for the Space Marines, treating their fluff books like a holy text. They created the current version of Space Marines when their audience consisted of a few men playing with metal models in England, making them epitomise the ideal version of manliness as it appears to a gamer. Since then, Games Workshop and the hobby have grown, but they refuse to let go of this aspect of the Space Marines.
Games Workshop could do better to represent more diverse genders (and now that plastics are detailed enough that people don't all look like potatoes, races).
Taus can arguably include females, since whne you look at Shadowsun there is not much difference with another Tau, so you can go and say" yeh half my Tau cadre are females" and no one would bat an eye.
Not much difference =/= no difference at all. Why settle for mediocre kits and having to pretend that half your Tau are female when you can hold GW to a higher standard and demand actual female parts?
This I will argue though as I view the gender neutral armour of the Tau to be one of their strong points. They included an army that represents a mixed combat unit without feeling the need to sexualise the hell (pardon my language) out of it. Tau don't need the horrible boob-plate that the Sisters of Battle have and their heads are all these angry glaring things with a ponytail. The only way to prove whether a Tau is male or female is to include stripping Tau miniatures, and even that might not solve the problem as they have been stated to have different sexual characteristics than humans.
At this point it appears that the only ones who are fighting for this change are doing so out of spite. Either everything gets made equal or I will huff and puff and blow your opinions away.
Honestly I couldn't care less. If GW decides to do it you wont see me up in arms boycotting or anything silly like that. And if it stays the same then I can live happy knowing that GW is either willing to stand up to feminists who desire everything to be equal, or more likely they are just to cheap to make new kits that they are afraid won't sell well.
This I will argue though as I view the gender neutral armour of the Tau to be one of their strong points. They included an army that represents a mixed combat unit without feeling the need to sexualise the hell (pardon my language) out of it. Tau don't need the horrible boob-plate that the Sisters of Battle have and their heads are all these angry glaring things with a ponytail. The only way to prove whether a Tau is male or female is to include stripping Tau miniatures, and even that might not solve the problem as they have been stated to have different sexual characteristics than humans.
While I agree with your point as a whole, it's actually a lot easier to prove if a Tau is male or female. A male Tau has a straight line facial slit, while a female Tau has a Y shaped facial slit. The Ghostkeel for example comes with both styles of head.
This I will argue though as I view the gender neutral armour of the Tau to be one of their strong points. They included an army that represents a mixed combat unit without feeling the need to sexualise the hell (pardon my language) out of it. Tau don't need the horrible boob-plate that the Sisters of Battle have and their heads are all these angry glaring things with a ponytail. The only way to prove whether a Tau is male or female is to include stripping Tau miniatures, and even that might not solve the problem as they have been stated to have different sexual characteristics than humans.
While I agree with your point as a whole, it's actually a lot easier to prove if a Tau is male or female. A male Tau has a straight line facial slit, while a female Tau has a Y shaped facial slit. The Ghostkeel for example comes with both styles of head.
MorkorpossiblyGork wrote: At this point it appears that the only ones who are fighting for this change are doing so out of spite. Either everything gets made equal or I will huff and puff and blow your opinions away.
You must be reading a different thread, because that's clearly not what is happening here. Could you give us a link to the alternate thread that you're trying to talk about, so that we can understand what you're trying to say?
And if it stays the same then I can live happy knowing that GW is either willing to stand up to feminists who desire everything to be equal
Yeah, equality is such a horrible goal, isn't it...
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Slayer le boucher wrote: Also claiming that there is no explanation for no female SM, then giving the (flash version) of the explanation, saying its scientific, but since 40k is a made up world, so the science isn't real, and thus we shouldn't take the explanation giving, is the stupidest joke i've heard fo a while...
The point is that there are two separate questions here:
1) Why, according to GW's current fluff, are there no female marines?
and
2) Why doesn't GW make female marines?
"Because the geneseed doesn't work that way" is a valid answer to the first question, but not the second. It's no more than "a space wizard did it" or "because GW said so", and doesn't explain anything about whyGW made that decision and should or should not change it. So no, we shouldn't accept in-universe fluff explanations as a response to a suggestion that GW should change their fluff.
One problem is that GW seems to be terrified of trying to change any of the lore that they have written for the Space Marines, treating their fluff books like a holy text. They created the current version of Space Marines when their audience consisted of a few men playing with metal models in England, making them epitomise the ideal version of manliness as it appears to a gamer. Since then, Games Workshop and the hobby have grown, but they refuse to let go of this aspect of the Space Marines.
Games Workshop could do better to represent more diverse genders (and now that plastics are detailed enough that people don't all look like potatoes, races).
Taus can arguably include females, since whne you look at Shadowsun there is not much difference with another Tau, so you can go and say" yeh half my Tau cadre are females" and no one would bat an eye.
Not much difference =/= no difference at all. Why settle for mediocre kits and having to pretend that half your Tau are female when you can hold GW to a higher standard and demand actual female parts?
This I will argue though as I view the gender neutral armour of the Tau to be one of their strong points. They included an army that represents a mixed combat unit without feeling the need to sexualise the hell (pardon my language) out of it. Tau don't need the horrible boob-plate that the Sisters of Battle have and their heads are all these angry glaring things with a ponytail. The only way to prove whether a Tau is male or female is to include stripping Tau miniatures, and even that might not solve the problem as they have been stated to have different sexual characteristics than humans.
1.GW isn't afraid to change space marine lore at all. Theyve been pulling that since rogue trader, back when I believe they were glorified beaky riot police. Want proof, look up centurions, half the space wolf crap, the various flyers, etc. That practically fell out of the sky during 6th but don't worry guys, the space marines have totally had this stuff the whole time.
2. Space marines have been around 25 years, and in game over 10,000. You think the centurions were a ridiculous thing pulled out of their arse, how on earth would they justify female space marines?!? It would invalidate literally almost every single book released since the game began, and at absolute best would come of as pandering. At worst? Well, you've seen the abominations GW has crapped out for background fluff recently. Would you want a guy like ward writing background for female marines?
3. Not every setting needs to be a champion of equality. I wonder, maybe part of having the space marines as genetic abominations that are male entirely is to point out exactly how INEQUAL people are in the imperium? You know, a universe that is so horrible to be an average Joe in that it makes 3rd world modern countries look like utopias? Inequality in a setting can help get across the idea that maybe, just maybe a setting that describes itself as "grimdark" is a gakky place to live? Many of these people are lucky to get a warm meal everyday and not fall into the machinery. They have way bigger things to worry about than what pronoun they're referred to by.
Would you honestly believe that the Imperium is half that bad, but for some reason gender equality is absolutely fine? That for some reason a guardsman's life is worth less than the lasgiun he carries, but don't worry if he's transgendered they'll be sure to call him by his preferred pronoun before they tell him to run across a field to clear mines with his face?
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
MrMoustaffa wrote: 3. Not every setting needs to be a champion of equality. I wonder, maybe part of having the space marines as genetic abominations that are male entirely is to point out exactly how INEQUAL people are in the imperium? You know, a universe that is so horrible to be an average Joe in that it makes 3rd world modern countries look like utopias? Inequality in a setting can help get across the idea that maybe, just maybe a setting that describes itself as "grimdark" is a gakky place to live? Many of these people are lucky to get a warm meal everyday and not fall into the machinery. They have way bigger things to worry about than what pronoun they're referred to by.
Would you honestly believe that the Imperium is half that bad, but for some reason gender equality is absolutely fine? That for some reason a guardsman's life is worth less than the lasgiun he carries, but don't worry if he's transgendered they'll be sure to call him by his preferred pronoun before they tell him to run across a field to clear mines with his face?
This would be a much stronger point if GW portrayed the lack of women in the military as a horrible dystopian thing, rather than just yet another case of the default hero being a white man. And, honestly, it doesn't make much sense for the Imperium's evils to neatly line up with real-world prejudices. For example, we know that the Imperium is actually fairly tolerant of differences in religion, as long as you throw a superficial layer of Emperor worship on top of your beliefs. And real-world racism wouldn't make any sense at all because the origins of that racism would be 38,000 years in the past on a planet that most citizens of the Imperium have barely even heard the name of. So yeah, maybe the Imperium would be perfectly happy to use a guardsman's preferred pronouns for a few seconds before that guardsman is splattered by a bolter shot in a suicidal human wave attack, because nobody 38,000 years in the future considers it an important issue anymore.
Also, even if it's not strictly realistic, the goal here is out-of-universe inclusiveness. If you have to bend the fluff a bit to let people who aren't middle-class straight white guys have people they can identify with then I don't think that's a very high price to pay.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Slayer le boucher wrote: Also claiming that there is no explanation for no female SM, then giving the (flash version) of the explanation, saying its scientific, but since 40k is a made up world, so the science isn't real, and thus we shouldn't take the explanation giving, is the stupidest joke i've heard fo a while...
The point is that there are two separate questions here:
1) Why, according to GW's current fluff, are there no female marines?
and
2) Why doesn't GW make female marines?
"Because the geneseed doesn't work that way" is a valid answer to the first question, but not the second. It's no more than "a space wizard did it" or "because GW said so", and doesn't explain anything about whyGW made that decision and should or should not change it. So no, we shouldn't accept in-universe fluff explanations as a response to a suggestion that GW should change their fluff.
One problem is that GW seems to be terrified of trying to change any of the lore that they have written for the Space Marines, treating their fluff books like a holy text. They created the current version of Space Marines when their audience consisted of a few men playing with metal models in England, making them epitomise the ideal version of manliness as it appears to a gamer. Since then, Games Workshop and the hobby have grown, but they refuse to let go of this aspect of the Space Marines.
Games Workshop could do better to represent more diverse genders (and now that plastics are detailed enough that people don't all look like potatoes, races).
Taus can arguably include females, since whne you look at Shadowsun there is not much difference with another Tau, so you can go and say" yeh half my Tau cadre are females" and no one would bat an eye.
Not much difference =/= no difference at all. Why settle for mediocre kits and having to pretend that half your Tau are female when you can hold GW to a higher standard and demand actual female parts?
This I will argue though as I view the gender neutral armour of the Tau to be one of their strong points. They included an army that represents a mixed combat unit without feeling the need to sexualise the hell (pardon my language) out of it. Tau don't need the horrible boob-plate that the Sisters of Battle have and their heads are all these angry glaring things with a ponytail. The only way to prove whether a Tau is male or female is to include stripping Tau miniatures, and even that might not solve the problem as they have been stated to have different sexual characteristics than humans.
1.GW isn't afraid to change space marine lore at all. Theyve been pulling that since rogue trader, back when I believe they were glorified beaky riot police. Want proof, look up centurions, half the space wolf crap, the various flyers, etc. That practically fell out of the sky during 6th but don't worry guys, the space marines have totally had this stuff the whole time.
2. Space marines have been around 25 years, and in game over 10,000. You think the centurions were a ridiculous thing pulled out of their arse, how on earth would they justify female space marines?!? It would invalidate literally almost every single book released since the game began, and at absolute best would come of as pandering. At worst? Well, you've seen the abominations GW has crapped out for background fluff recently. Would you want a guy like ward writing background for female marines?
3. Not every setting needs to be a champion of equality. I wonder, maybe part of having the space marines as genetic abominations that are male entirely is to point out exactly how INEQUAL people are in the imperium? You know, a universe that is so horrible to be an average Joe in that it makes 3rd world modern countries look like utopias? Inequality in a setting can help get across the idea that maybe, just maybe a setting that describes itself as "grimdark" is a gakky place to live? Many of these people are lucky to get a warm meal everyday and not fall into the machinery. They have way bigger things to worry about than what pronoun they're referred to by.
Would you honestly believe that the Imperium is half that bad, but for some reason gender equality is absolutely fine? That for some reason a guardsman's life is worth less than the lasgiun he carries, but don't worry if he's transgendered they'll be sure to call him by his preferred pronoun before they tell him to run across a field to clear mines with his face?
great post but that part that is in bold really hits the nail on the head.
MrMoustaffa wrote: 3. Not every setting needs to be a champion of equality. I wonder, maybe part of having the space marines as genetic abominations that are male entirely is to point out exactly how INEQUAL people are in the imperium? You know, a universe that is so horrible to be an average Joe in that it makes 3rd world modern countries look like utopias? Inequality in a setting can help get across the idea that maybe, just maybe a setting that describes itself as "grimdark" is a gakky place to live? Many of these people are lucky to get a warm meal everyday and not fall into the machinery. They have way bigger things to worry about than what pronoun they're referred to by.
Would you honestly believe that the Imperium is half that bad, but for some reason gender equality is absolutely fine? That for some reason a guardsman's life is worth less than the lasgiun he carries, but don't worry if he's transgendered they'll be sure to call him by his preferred pronoun before they tell him to run across a field to clear mines with his face?
This would be a much stronger point if GW portrayed the lack of women in the military as a horrible dystopian thing, rather than just yet another case of the default hero being a white man. And, honestly, it doesn't make much sense for the Imperium's evils to neatly line up with real-world prejudices. For example, we know that the Imperium is actually fairly tolerant of differences in religion, as long as you throw a superficial layer of Emperor worship on top of your beliefs. And real-world racism wouldn't make any sense at all because the origins of that racism would be 38,000 years in the past on a planet that most citizens of the Imperium have barely even heard the name of. So yeah, maybe the Imperium would be perfectly happy to use a guardsman's preferred pronouns for a few seconds before that guardsman is splattered by a bolter shot in a suicidal human wave attack, because nobody 38,000 years in the future considers it an important issue anymore.
Also, even if it's not strictly realistic, the goal here is out-of-universe inclusiveness. If you have to bend the fluff a bit to let people who aren't middle-class straight white guys have people they can identify with then I don't think that's a very high price to pay.
So its ok for Females to have an entire army (SoB) but god forbid IG and SM don't have females? Can we have Brothers of Battle to then? How about we just throw the game away and hold hands and sing Kumbayah? would that make it all better?
Here is a crazy idea. Instead of worrying about all the small things like plastic figurines in a table top game why not focus on the bigger issues? Like women in certain countries not getting to vote and being raped/molested because they are females?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/25 05:03:13
