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.

 Crimson wrote:
And this trend is?
(You kinda already said earlier what you mean, but I wish you'd clarify. I don't want to put words in your mouth.)

The larger trend is mainstream market demand for IPs traditionally consumed by nerds. Part of that is pressure on the IPs to reform to better match mainstream tastes. Mainstream people (on /tg/, they are derided as "normies") say they like a certain IP X but also criticize X for not being more mainstream, such as not being sufficiently "representative" or "diverse." Nerds in turn challenge whether normies actually like X and are resentful of the notion that "their" beloved IPs require tailoring to the mainstream palette. One mainstream response has been to latch onto the typical problem that undersocialized/marginalized people have expressing themselves in a manner nonoffensive to the mainstream to characterize these criticisms as sexist and racist - which conveniently reaffirms mainstream values while also conveniently reaffirming the marginalization of non-mainstream culture. Nerds remain "weird" and "creepy" and, as it turns out, even the way they like comic books and miniature gaming is badwrongfun.

 Kain wrote:
they just want to be represented in a respectful way and given actual prominence

"Representation" in a broad sense assumes people can only relate to people like themselves along a few, extremely superficial dimensions. Pretty dumb. The more narrow sense of representation (for example, if your movie is about a woman suffering prejudice because she is Asian then you should probably cast an Asian actress as that woman) by contrast is very well taken. But that narrow sense doesn't really apply to 40k.

Manchu wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
I'm not quite following what you mean by 'begging the question'. Can you explain?

Begging the question means assuming the conclusion. Like I said, your actual hypothesis is "the femarine concept generates the most pushback because the people pushing back are sexist." You would be assuming your conclusion by defining pushback to the femarines concept as sexist.

Ah I see. I've already explained that it's just a phenomenon of behaviour I've noticed, and that the only explanation I can think of that fits properly is unconscious gender bias (which isn't a myth, it's a widespread phenomenon demonstrated in all levels and pockets of society).

I'm not assuming anything, I'm hypothesising that that's an explanation. That's where the experiment comes in. To actually try to suggest which hypothesis is the more likely one.

Manchu wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
we cannot say "Topics A and B are both controversial but only Topic A has to do with gender. If Topic A has more pushback than Topic B then it must be because Topic A involves gender"

i meant that as an example of a sound argument - although sure your qualification ("probably involves gender") is better. But like I said, we both already agree that the femarine concept (a) generates the most pushback and (b) this is because the concept involves gender. Where we disagree is, you believe the operative factor is the sexism of 40k fans - whereas I believe the operative factor is this phenomenon of marginalization (including but not limited to "colonization") which created 40k fans - and all nerds - to begin with.

I'm glad that we can agree that femmarines generate the most pushback, and that it's because the concept involves gender. By definition, that is a gender-biased thought process. Now, please, please, please don't think that I am saying that in any way accusatory. I don't think it's anything specific about geek culture. I'm not calling out people who are doing it and saying that they're bad people. I'm just pointing something out that is an undercurrent to damn near all human civilisation at this point in history, and often goes unnoticed by people who would be aghast that they are participating in that practice (I count myself as one of these people). I feel it is very important to point this stuff out, not because I want to feel high and mighty or anything, but because it is an acknowledged artifact of our culture as humans that is about time disappeared.

Now, onto the experiment

Have we moved on from your hypothesis that 'female Space Marines are a hot topic because they're a symbol of trolling'? What it seems like you're arguing now is that it is a hot topic because people are reacting to having been marginalised? Apologies, I don't follow the logic. Could you please explain the thought process by which that happens? Help me understand, I'm a little lost.

I have to say before you start though that I think your original hypothesis is a stronger one. Femmarines being a hot topic predates the 'colonisation' of geekdom by many years, as does trolling. Unless you mean it's a phenomenon of the original process by which geek culture was created, and/or the process by which geeks are now.?

I'll refrain from further thought on this until you've provided a bit more detail of your rationale as I might be clutching at the wrong argument here.

Manchu wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
However, finding another subject that is similar to female Space Marines in the 'history for trolling' department would help make the results stronger.

I don't think there is anything even remotely like the concept of femarines for this purpose because it is so strongly tied to a specific trend in mainstream political culture. However, if you wanted to test whether 40k fans are sexist, maybe you could start a thread about an all-female IG regiment and see how that goes. But of course, I can tell you the result: posters will say "that already exists in the fluff."

Yeah that's sort of what I thought on the 'no other similar fluff for 'history for trolling' department front. That's why I went with the original experiment structure (including the Chaos Eldar as another hot topic) because that's the best way to control for the variables with what we have. In order to make it stronger though, we could come up with a number of other 'hot topics' that don't involve gender and compare all of them to female Marines which does. That would also strengthen the data we get through sheer quantity (which is worked into the statistical packages).

I don't think posting about an all-female IG regiment is in any way a similar thing unfortunately. Mainly for the point that you made that 'it already exists in the fluff'. By definition it's not a bending of the fluff, so it's not similar to female Marines. Plus, it doesn't have the connotations that make female Marines a potential subject for gender-bias (strength and legitimacy mainly. Aside from Primarchs, Space Marines are the pinnacle of human awesomeness in the 40k universe, whereas the Guard plays second-fiddle in the majority of fluff and people's perceptions).

Hah, I've just had a thought. No-where in the fluff does it state that 'Primarchs can't be female'. It only states that Space Marines can't, and that the Primarchs we know of were male. Perhaps that would be a way to provide further evidence that it is something fishy about women being strong, powerful and the top of the hierarchy that people feel uncomfortable with.

Is this some sort of Kafkaesque absurdism? Are you seriously attempting to insinuate that your average middle class male nerds are somehow more oppressed and marginalized than Blacks and Indigenous people who are disproportionately likely to end up dead and tend to live in markedly lower standards of living than the racial majorities in the developed world; than women who are constantly objectified, ignored or shoved to the sidelines in fiction; or Queer people who have for most of the modern era's history been regarded as actual factual abominations by much of the developed world, to be denied the right to exist as they actually are on the pain of death? People who even now are continually called abominations to be damned to burn in hellfire to this very day?

Is this something I am actually seeing?

Manchu wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
And this trend is?
(You kinda already said earlier what you mean, but I wish you'd clarify. I don't want to put words in your mouth.)

The larger trend is mainstream market demand for IPs traditionally consumed by nerds. Part of that is pressure on the IPs to reform to better match mainstream tastes. Mainstream people (on /tg/, they are derided as "normies") say they like a certain IP X but also criticize X for not being more mainstream, such as not being sufficiently "representative" or "diverse." Nerds in turn challenge whether normies actually like X and are resentful of the notion that "their" beloved IPs require tailoring to the mainstream palette. One mainstream response has been to latch onto the typical problem that undersocialized/marginalized people have expressing themselves in a manner nonoffensive to the mainstream to characterize these criticisms as sexist and racist - which conveniently reaffirms mainstream values.

Aaaah, that makes sense now. Thanks. I don't think that this is the case here unfortunately. I'm not trying to 'mainstream' 40k. I actually thoroughly dislike the new daemonettes and wish above all else that they would bring back plastic versions of the Juan Diaz daemonettes, purely because they fit so much better with the fluff. If I wanted to mainstream stuff I'd be dead-set against that as 'oh no, boobs!' is not exactly family-friendly. Besides, it's disingenuous because blokes are allowed to rip around topless so why shouldn't girls? Without people being funny about it. People have boobs. What's the big deal?

I do still think that the attitude towards female Space Marines does need to change though.

I promise you, this isn't a conspiracy to try and mainstream your particular corner of the universe. It's simply an attempt to let people like DizzyStorey share it with you (like so many other people do) without feeling like she's being singled out, or having her ideas called out as 'mainstreaming' or 'trolling' when it's actually a pretty neat idea she's had.

Manchu wrote:
The larger trend is mainstream market demand for IPs traditionally consumed by nerds. Part of that is pressure on the IPs to reform to better match mainstream tastes. Mainstream people (on /tg/, they are derided as "normies") say they like a certain IP X but also criticize X for not being more mainstream, such as not being sufficiently "representative" or "diverse." Nerds in turn challenge whether normies actually like X and are resentful of the notion that "their" beloved IPs require tailoring to the mainstream palette. One mainstream response has been to latch onto the typical problem that undersocialized/marginalized people have expressing themselves in a manner nonoffensive to the mainstream to characterize these criticisms as sexist and racist - which conveniently reaffirms mainstream values while also conveniently reaffirming the marginalization of non-mainstream culture. Nerds remain "weird" and "creepy" and, as it turns out, even the way they like comic books and miniature gaming is badwrongfun.

Right.

So my earlier post was spot on. This is patently absurd. If 'mainstream' people accuse something of being sexist, it is vast majority of time because it is sexist, not because they try to oppress the nerds. Not to mention that this nerd victim compex is really in bad taste when we are talking about representation of groups of people who have historically been actually oppressed and marginalised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kain wrote:
Is this some sort of Kafkaesque absurdism? Are you seriously attempting to insinuate that your average middle class male nerds are somehow more oppressed and marginalized than Blacks and Indigenous people who are disproportionately likely to end up dead and tend to live in markedly lower standards of living than the racial majorities in the developed world; than women who are constantly objectified, ignored or shoved to the sidelines in fiction; or Queer people who have for most of the modern era's history been regarded as actual factual abominations by much of the developed world, to be denied the right to exist as they actually are on the pain of death? People who even now are continually called abominations to be damned to burn in hellfire to this very day?

Is this something I am actually seeing?

Yeah...

Manchu wrote:
Representation" in a broad sense assumes people can only relate to people like themselves along a few, extremely superficial dimensions. Pretty dumb. The more narrow sense of representation (for example, if your movie is about a woman suffering prejudice because she is Asian then you should probably cast an Asian actress as that woman) by contrast is very well taken. But that narrow sense doesn't really apply to 40k.

Bro, you don't get to tell women what they should be content with in terms of representation anymore than anyone has a right to tell trans people that they should be happy with the status quo where they're lucky to even get acknowledged as existing in most fiction outside of being the butt of disgusting jokes. Representation is about making people feel included. And in a large shared setting where one can endlessly add content because it's not tied down to the concerns that affect a single narrative setting like Lord of the Rings; there is no good excuse to not make people of colour, queer people, or women feel more included by giving them characters that they can relate to as a source of representation without people jumping on them with mansplanations about why they're violating canon by existing. Characters who should at least get to do something important once in a while even if it's in some self contained novel series. Like, do you even know how happy LGBTQ (or simply Queer for short) people are when a major work of fiction acknowledges their existence and gives them a positive portrayal? They squee in joy and delight because someone has the kindness to acknowledge they exist and not portray them as monsters. Or how much it brightens the day of many a young girl to see a woman who isn't just window dressing or a prize for the leading man to win in a movie or a game or a book? Or seen a black person get positively elated when they get a black character who isn't a collection of racial stereotypes? Maybe you don't have the proper frame of reference for it, but this is very, very deeply important to many people who would love nothing more than for the media to acknowledge that they exist and deserve to be respected and loved like any other human being. This isn't some dumb wish fulfillment audience avatar thing, this is born out of wanting to be acknowledged in a society that all too often objectifies, marginalizes and sometimes outright demonizes them. When you have angry redditors ranting, raving, and shouting about "da ess jay double yous" when major media has the audacity to include a cast that's not just filled with white dudebros or has girls who have the audacity to be actually major and independent characters; you have a lot of these marginalized people feeling very threatened to simply share the same space with the IP lest they get the kind of ranting and raving tongue lashing that Bioware fans get from people who have been accusing Bioware of cultural marxism since the 2010s began.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
I'm glad that we can agree that femmarines generate the most pushback, and that it's because the concept involves gender. By definition, that is a gender-biased thought process.

No. Gender being involved does not necessarily imply a sexist motive.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
What it seems like you're arguing now is that it is a hot topic because people are reacting to having been marginalised?

Why are you mischaracterizing my extremely consistent position. My very first post on the subject ITT:

Manchu wrote:
Calling out the concept of SM as sexist, however, is badly misplaced. And 40k fans taking offense to that critique, which they correctly perceive as an implied attack (sometimes its explicit) on themselves, does not reveal that they are sexists.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
I don't think posting about an all-female IG regiment is in any way a similar thing unfortunately.

What I was getting at is that what you actually want to do is test whether 40k fans are sexists. I think you could do it by asking about an existing issue of plausible sexism - the lack of official female IG figs - and see how many push back on the grounds that the fluff should be changed to exclude women.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
Hah, I've just had a thought. No-where in the fluff does it state that 'Primarchs can't be female'. It only states that Space Marines can't, and that the Primarchs we know of were male. Perhaps that would be a way to provide further evidence that it is something fishy about women being strong, powerful and the top of the hierarchy that people feel uncomfortable with.

I actually thought a little about this one last night. It would have been a good one in past years. As it stands, we now know more about the missing Primarchs/Legions. For one thing, the Legions were around even if the Primarchs were missing. Second, we know that at least one of the missing Legions was folded into the UM. So that means the constituent SM were themselves all-male, if you accept that the missing Legions operated the same way as other SM (i.e., that they were in fact actually SM). That could still leave open the question of whether one or both of their Primarchs was female, either by the Emperor's design or by machinations of the Chaos Gods or both.

 Crimson wrote:
If 'mainstream' people accuse something of being sexist, it is vast majority of time because it is sexist

Is that something that can be demonstrated or is it one of those declarations that just stands because the person making it already assumes it is so? I think it has to be the former, especially in light of the possibility of alternative explanations.

 Crimson wrote:
people who have historically been actually oppressed and marginalised

Like nerds. The very definition of a the group is "social outcast."

 Kain wrote:
somehow more oppressed and marginalized than

Has nothing to do with what I have posted.

 Kain wrote:
Representation is about making people feel included.

See above regarding bare declarations.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
@ the OP, I haven't read all of this discussion so apologies if said before.

Dismissing your 'Amazon Spacemarines' is not all that ingenious. If you read the Fabius Bile book Primogenitor Bile has created augmented humans from Astartes geneseed, the leader of this bunch happens to be female.

This is a very good point. It is important to note though that Igori and the rest are not actual Astartes, but rather "Gland-Hounds".

Here's what I could get of the extract:

"Gland-hounds. The New Humanity, as designed by Fabius Bile. Stronger, faster, more aggressive than the brief sparks that sheltered in the shadow of the Imperium. The first generation had been born of partial gene-seed implantation. Those first few crude attempts had become more refined over time, as the master had devised his own, lesser form of gene-seed. One which was not so likely to kill its host out of hand.
They came alert instantly. There was a disconcerting intensity to their blank gazes - as if he were some large bovid who had wandered unknowing into the midst of a carnosaur pack. It had been a long time since anything had looked at him that way, and he shivered in delight. 'They say, in the lands of milk and sorrow, that those pale echoes of our brothers now gone know no fear,' he said to Arrian. 'It saddens me to think of it .'
As he spoke, one of hounds stepped forward, setting herself between them and the doorway beyond. She crossed her muscular arms, and gazed steadily at them. 'Igori,' Arrian said. There was an odd sort of respect in his tone, Oleander thought. He bridled at it. Arrian was free to consider the creature his equal, but Oleander was under no such obligation.
'You're new,' Oleander said , looking down at the woman - Igori, Arrian had called her. He sniffed, and grimaced. 'But I can tell you're one of his. I can smell it from here. '
Igori said nothing. Her face was square. It might as well have been chiselled out of marble. Everything about her was perfect. Too perfect, too symmetrical. As if she were nothing more than a machine of meat and muscle. "

As we see, certainly female. Certainly very powerful, easily a match for a Space Marines in strength and toughness. But it is important to note that even these Gland-Hounds are only borne of "partial gene-seed implantation", or Fabius' own "lesser form of gene-seed".

This lends credence to genetically augmented females being possible, as I have maintained alongside Ezra. As for them being actual Astartes? Not so.

@Ynneadwraith - I fully accept and return the apology. I understand that I argued for far longer than I probably should have, and that we are both free to interpret fluff as mutably as we each choose to. It is, as you said, one of 40k's very good factors. For me, I do support people's own creation of fluff, but for me, it rubs me up the wrong when when it counters what I see as outright statements, ie blue being blue, up being up, etc etc. Again, my apologies for dragging this out. I've taken a step back to avoid instigating much else.

For me, I have no intention of hounding anyone out. If OP was dead set on having female marines, and didn't actually care for established lore, I have nothing to say but go for it. It's only when this question is brought into lore forums, and directed as a "I like the lore but..." statement that rises a reaction. For me, I would expect to see actual lore discussed in this particular forum, and only for actual canon lore, with that being the only arbiter. As current lore stands, assuming it's immutable, female Space Marines are not possible. But if OP doesn't want to listen to lore, or they do believe in the mutability of that line, who am I to stop them, as a random person on the internet?
My only real issue was that in a lore discussion, the lore itself was being ignored and seen as inappropriate in a lore discussion.

In response to your query of "Why is it that you feel so strongly about not having female Space Marines?", and "hasn't provided an explanation for why he deems that particular piece of fluff to be so important", it's just simple - I see that the lore is, without exceptional reason, immutable. I value the lore, and if it is immutable, like the statement of females not being able to be Space Marines, I'll default to the lore taking priority. Especially in a lore discussion.
I feel strongly about it because I feel the lore to around the issue be immutable and of high priority in a lore discussion.

I hope that clears up the question.

Likewise thankyou for the considered response

Perhaps it will help to frame the discussion using something else from the fluff that is comparable, and that other people can possibly use as a bridge to relate to the situation with female Space Marines and why I think it's unfair and unjustified.

There is a statement within the 'lore' (5th ed. SM Codex) that states that no matter what other Space Marines do, no matter how hard they try, they will never be Ultramarines (or words to that effect). So, what that suggests is that no matter what you do to your dudes, no matter how successful your chosen chapter is, they will never be as good as Ultramarines. They will never be 'the genuine article'. Which is, quite frankly, a pile of horse sh*t.

Absolutely agreed. Terrible writing, absolutely abysmal treatment to other Chapters. No argument in that this was a pile of gak.

However, it is an absolute statement in the lore, unless you want to go down the road of different bits of lore being more or less immutable than others.

This is where I beg to differ. Yes, it *was* an absolute statement, and has since been reamended. Spiritual Liege isn't mentioned at all in the new Codex, and we don't see anything about other Chapters never being Ultramarines. It's far less C: UM than it used to be, which I'd say is for the better. It has been amended, unsupported - there's clash of canon now.
Much like with the Goto examples (of which there are two many to name), one must look at conflicting fluff, and make the logical deductions as to which fluff is more recent, more specific, and more numerous. Under this logic, backflipping Terminators are ruled out, Spiritual Liege-ism is ruled out, the half-Eldar Librarian of the Ultramarines is ruled out.
Note that this process is only undergone when fluff clashes.

In the case of FeMarines, there is no clash. Nothing has changed in that geneseed is not compatible with the female body. It's not changed, and we see no female Astartes at any given point in the canon. There's no clash - the only thing that conflicts with it is real life. Not anything in the universe we are in given.

How do you (not just you, but others reading this comment too) feel that your chosen Space Marines are outright stated to 'not be as good as the Ultramarines'. It's annoying isn't it? It's insulting, if anything. It is justifiably ignored.

Now, take that feeling and put it into the context of someone being told that no matter what they do their female genetically modified warriors that are 100% identical to Astartes aside from being female, can never genuinely be Astartes. It's exactly the same logical process, yet this particular statement is held up so strongly when the previous one is happily ignored.

Can you see why that is unfair? Can you see why that doesn't make sense?

I displayed that the 5th Edition fluff is no longer relevant, whereas the FeMarine fluff (or lack of it) is still relevant. There is no in-universe conflict of sources. It is unanimously shown that women cannot be Astartes.
Call it technobabble, call it whatever, but it is uncontested canon. Nothing countermands it or contests it, unlike "Spiritual Liege Guilliman".

That's the difference here.

If the lore bans you from doing it, break the lore. Go ahead, it's up to you, the hobbyist. Just don't pretend that your break from the lore is actual canon.

Now. I don't mind if you feel like both statements are gospel, because they are both written down as statements of fact in the lore. However, when you get fluff topics about cool things Dark Angels have done, you don't get 10 pages of people stating 'yeah they're cool, better even, but they will never be Ultramarines'. And then justifying that stance by saying 'but it says so in the lore'.

Lore that is contested. FeMarines are not contested.

The combination of those two points is why I am certain that people treat female Space Marines strangely compared to any other piece of fluff (or lore, if you see it that way). It's not just that some people take each thing written down as sacrosanct (because that's just how some people like to interpret it which is fine), but it's that so many people will specifically go out of their way to state again and again the equivalent of 'all those reasons they are cool is nice...but they will never be Ultramarines'.

Except that the Ultramarine situation has not been unanimous in all of 40k's history, and that it has since changed from 5th Ed.
FeMarines has never existed in canon.

That's why I keep asking why people feel so strongly about this particular piece of lore. Because there are other pieces of lore that actually effect more people that people don't give a toss about, and I don't think it's fair or logical.

I hope my response shed light on this.

Also, in response to the "White Ultramarines" argument - it's absolutely and completely logical for a company of Ultramarines to repaint their armour for their captain. More acceptable in the Legion era, but in 40k still possible. However, two things:

1) Painting full armour is unheard of, and would likely result in disciplinary action. If they refused to amend their colour scheme, they would most likely be exiled, leading to...
2) Becoming separate to the Ultramarines. Either through choice, force, or exile, they cease to become actual Ultramarines, and a new faction - the Lions of Ultramar. So no, we don't have White Ultramarines. We have White Lions of Ultramar. They may be descended from the Ultramarines, even have been born into their ranks, but once they change their armour permanently, they cease to be Ultramarines.

Manchu wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
I'm glad that we can agree that femmarines generate the most pushback, and that it's because the concept involves gender. By definition, that is a gender-biased thought process.

No. Gender being involved does not necessarily imply a sexist motive.

I'm sorry, but being told you cannot do something on the basis of gender is the very definition of sexism.

Manchu wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
What it seems like you're arguing now is that it is a hot topic because people are reacting to having been marginalised?

Why are you mischaracterizing my extremely consistent position. My very first post on the subject ITT:

Manchu wrote:
Calling out the concept of SM as sexist, however, is badly misplaced. And 40k fans taking offense to that critique, which they correctly perceive as an implied attack (sometimes its explicit) on themselves, does not reveal that they are sexists.

Apologies, previously you have stated that you were happy for your hypothesis to be described as 'female Space Marines are a tool people have used for trolling'. I must still admit that i think that is a far better explanation for the phenomenon than the marginalisation idea.

Manchu wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
I don't think posting about an all-female IG regiment is in any way a similar thing unfortunately.

What I was getting at is that what you actually want to do is test whether 40k fans are sexists. I think you could do it by asking about an existing issue of plausible sexism - the lack of official female IG figs - and see how many push back on the grounds that the fluff should be changed to exclude women.

Female representation is one aspect of gender equality. I am happy to include that in the experiment.

However, it is still not an accurate comparison because female IG are legitimised in the fluff. That does not have the same connotations as having female Space Marines existing as a concept, given the latter's lack of legitimacy and status as the flagship faction of the universe.

I have to agree with everything Kain has written regarding why this particular thing is different to other measures of female representation. It's one thing to have to convert your female IG because there isn't official figs. It's another thing being told that you physically cannot convert female versions of your figures and have them be included and accepted into the universe.

Kain is spot-on the money as to why this is different. Spot on the money as to why this is important.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
but being told you cannot do something on the basis of gender is the very definition of sexism

As you know, the proffered explanation is about biology. Is it sexist to tell genetic males that they cannot ovulate?

As I mentioned several pages back, I would be happier if the in-universe explanation was simply sexism, just like the in-universe explanation of SoB is sexism.

I think the word "trolling" has caused more confusion than necessary - that's my fault so sorry for mixing the concepts. I was (mis)using the word to characterize teasing, bullying, excluding, making fun of - I am using "marginalization" to encapsulate that experience BTW.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
It's another thing being told that you physically cannot convert female versions of your figures and have them be included and accepted into the universe

Can you quote ITT where someone posted this?

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
Spot on the money as to why this is important.

Actually it's a complete non sequitur considering no one at all is arguing that "strong female characters" should not be represented in 40k.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Spoiler:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
@ the OP, I haven't read all of this discussion so apologies if said before.

Dismissing your 'Amazon Spacemarines' is not all that ingenious. If you read the Fabius Bile book Primogenitor Bile has created augmented humans from Astartes geneseed, the leader of this bunch happens to be female.

This is a very good point. It is important to note though that Igori and the rest are not actual Astartes, but rather "Gland-Hounds".

Here's what I could get of the extract:

"Gland-hounds. The New Humanity, as designed by Fabius Bile. Stronger, faster, more aggressive than the brief sparks that sheltered in the shadow of the Imperium. The first generation had been born of partial gene-seed implantation. Those first few crude attempts had become more refined over time, as the master had devised his own, lesser form of gene-seed. One which was not so likely to kill its host out of hand.
They came alert instantly. There was a disconcerting intensity to their blank gazes - as if he were some large bovid who had wandered unknowing into the midst of a carnosaur pack. It had been a long time since anything had looked at him that way, and he shivered in delight. 'They say, in the lands of milk and sorrow, that those pale echoes of our brothers now gone know no fear,' he said to Arrian. 'It saddens me to think of it .'
As he spoke, one of hounds stepped forward, setting herself between them and the doorway beyond. She crossed her muscular arms, and gazed steadily at them. 'Igori,' Arrian said. There was an odd sort of respect in his tone, Oleander thought. He bridled at it. Arrian was free to consider the creature his equal, but Oleander was under no such obligation.
'You're new,' Oleander said , looking down at the woman - Igori, Arrian had called her. He sniffed, and grimaced. 'But I can tell you're one of his. I can smell it from here. '
Igori said nothing. Her face was square. It might as well have been chiselled out of marble. Everything about her was perfect. Too perfect, too symmetrical. As if she were nothing more than a machine of meat and muscle. "

As we see, certainly female. Certainly very powerful, easily a match for a Space Marines in strength and toughness. But it is important to note that even these Gland-Hounds are only borne of "partial gene-seed implantation", or Fabius' own "lesser form of gene-seed".

This lends credence to genetically augmented females being possible, as I have maintained alongside Ezra. As for them being actual Astartes? Not so.

@Ynneadwraith - I fully accept and return the apology. I understand that I argued for far longer than I probably should have, and that we are both free to interpret fluff as mutably as we each choose to. It is, as you said, one of 40k's very good factors. For me, I do support people's own creation of fluff, but for me, it rubs me up the wrong when when it counters what I see as outright statements, ie blue being blue, up being up, etc etc. Again, my apologies for dragging this out. I've taken a step back to avoid instigating much else.

For me, I have no intention of hounding anyone out. If OP was dead set on having female marines, and didn't actually care for established lore, I have nothing to say but go for it. It's only when this question is brought into lore forums, and directed as a "I like the lore but..." statement that rises a reaction. For me, I would expect to see actual lore discussed in this particular forum, and only for actual canon lore, with that being the only arbiter. As current lore stands, assuming it's immutable, female Space Marines are not possible. But if OP doesn't want to listen to lore, or they do believe in the mutability of that line, who am I to stop them, as a random person on the internet?
My only real issue was that in a lore discussion, the lore itself was being ignored and seen as inappropriate in a lore discussion.

In response to your query of "Why is it that you feel so strongly about not having female Space Marines?", and "hasn't provided an explanation for why he deems that particular piece of fluff to be so important", it's just simple - I see that the lore is, without exceptional reason, immutable. I value the lore, and if it is immutable, like the statement of females not being able to be Space Marines, I'll default to the lore taking priority. Especially in a lore discussion.
I feel strongly about it because I feel the lore to around the issue be immutable and of high priority in a lore discussion.

I hope that clears up the question.

Likewise thankyou for the considered response

Perhaps it will help to frame the discussion using something else from the fluff that is comparable, and that other people can possibly use as a bridge to relate to the situation with female Space Marines and why I think it's unfair and unjustified.

There is a statement within the 'lore' (5th ed. SM Codex) that states that no matter what other Space Marines do, no matter how hard they try, they will never be Ultramarines (or words to that effect). So, what that suggests is that no matter what you do to your dudes, no matter how successful your chosen chapter is, they will never be as good as Ultramarines. They will never be 'the genuine article'. Which is, quite frankly, a pile of horse sh*t.

Absolutely agreed. Terrible writing, absolutely abysmal treatment to other Chapters. No argument in that this was a pile of gak.

However, it is an absolute statement in the lore, unless you want to go down the road of different bits of lore being more or less immutable than others.

This is where I beg to differ. Yes, it *was* an absolute statement, and has since been reamended. Spiritual Liege isn't mentioned at all in the new Codex, and we don't see anything about other Chapters never being Ultramarines. It's far less C: UM than it used to be, which I'd say is for the better. It has been amended, unsupported - there's clash of canon now.
Much like with the Goto examples (of which there are two many to name), one must look at conflicting fluff, and make the logical deductions as to which fluff is more recent, more specific, and more numerous. Under this logic, backflipping Terminators are ruled out, Spiritual Liege-ism is ruled out, the half-Eldar Librarian of the Ultramarines is ruled out.
Note that this process is only undergone when fluff clashes.

In the case of FeMarines, there is no clash. Nothing has changed in that geneseed is not compatible with the female body. It's not changed, and we see no female Astartes at any given point in the canon. There's no clash - the only thing that conflicts with it is real life. Not anything in the universe we are in given.

How do you (not just you, but others reading this comment too) feel that your chosen Space Marines are outright stated to 'not be as good as the Ultramarines'. It's annoying isn't it? It's insulting, if anything. It is justifiably ignored.

Now, take that feeling and put it into the context of someone being told that no matter what they do their female genetically modified warriors that are 100% identical to Astartes aside from being female, can never genuinely be Astartes. It's exactly the same logical process, yet this particular statement is held up so strongly when the previous one is happily ignored.

Can you see why that is unfair? Can you see why that doesn't make sense?

I displayed that the 5th Edition fluff is no longer relevant, whereas the FeMarine fluff (or lack of it) is still relevant. There is no in-universe conflict of sources. It is unanimously shown that women cannot be Astartes.
Call it technobabble, call it whatever, but it is uncontested canon. Nothing countermands it or contests it, unlike "Spiritual Liege Guilliman".

That's the difference here.

If the lore bans you from doing it, break the lore. Go ahead, it's up to you, the hobbyist. Just don't pretend that your break from the lore is actual canon.

Now. I don't mind if you feel like both statements are gospel, because they are both written down as statements of fact in the lore. However, when you get fluff topics about cool things Dark Angels have done, you don't get 10 pages of people stating 'yeah they're cool, better even, but they will never be Ultramarines'. And then justifying that stance by saying 'but it says so in the lore'.

Lore that is contested. FeMarines are not contested.

The combination of those two points is why I am certain that people treat female Space Marines strangely compared to any other piece of fluff (or lore, if you see it that way). It's not just that some people take each thing written down as sacrosanct (because that's just how some people like to interpret it which is fine), but it's that so many people will specifically go out of their way to state again and again the equivalent of 'all those reasons they are cool is nice...but they will never be Ultramarines'.

Except that the Ultramarine situation has not been unanimous in all of 40k's history, and that it has since changed from 5th Ed.
FeMarines has never existed in canon.

That's why I keep asking why people feel so strongly about this particular piece of lore. Because there are other pieces of lore that actually effect more people that people don't give a toss about, and I don't think it's fair or logical.

I hope my response shed light on this.

Also, in response to the "White Ultramarines" argument - it's absolutely and completely logical for a company of Ultramarines to repaint their armour for their captain. More acceptable in the Legion era, but in 40k still possible. However, two things:

1) Painting full armour is unheard of, and would likely result in disciplinary action. If they refused to amend their colour scheme, they would most likely be exiled, leading to...
2) Becoming separate to the Ultramarines. Either through choice, force, or exile, they cease to become actual Ultramarines, and a new faction - the Lions of Ultramar. So no, we don't have White Ultramarines. We have White Lions of Ultramar. They may be descended from the Ultramarines, even have been born into their ranks, but once they change their armour permanently, they cease to be Ultramarines.

Thankyou for at least proving your integrity that you will argue against white Ultramarines. I believe you will be in a minory unfortunately, compared to thise that will contest female Space Marines. That is something that will have to be demonstrated on way or the other by experiment.

Also, i am disputing the lack of female Space Marines, as is everyone in this thread who stated they were ok with it.

I feel i should make a qualification at this point. I never wanted to say that female space marines are a legitimate piece of the lore (not until it's actually written down). However, i do want them to be treated exactly the same as any other break from the lore by the people in this community, which they aren't (as evidenced by the weight of anecdotes about how they're treated differently from others, and the admission by Machu who has been one of my staunchest opponents).

You, my friend, are a wonderfully unbiased exception unfortunately, one response doesn not make a cumminity backlash.

I hope that makes it clearer

@Sgt_Smudge

Excellent post RE: UM armor. If someone's personal UM army knowingly disregarded the established principles of the Codex Astartes then they wouldn't be very convincing UM considering the foundational principle of the UM is Codex adherence. An excellent example of the kind of detailed information you can get by posting on a 40k fan site when weighing the pros and cons of your persnoal army idea.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Spoiler:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
@ the OP, I haven't read all of this discussion so apologies if said before.

Dismissing your 'Amazon Spacemarines' is not all that ingenious. If you read the Fabius Bile book Primogenitor Bile has created augmented humans from Astartes geneseed, the leader of this bunch happens to be female.

This is a very good point. It is important to note though that Igori and the rest are not actual Astartes, but rather "Gland-Hounds".

Here's what I could get of the extract:

"Gland-hounds. The New Humanity, as designed by Fabius Bile. Stronger, faster, more aggressive than the brief sparks that sheltered in the shadow of the Imperium. The first generation had been born of partial gene-seed implantation. Those first few crude attempts had become more refined over time, as the master had devised his own, lesser form of gene-seed. One which was not so likely to kill its host out of hand.
They came alert instantly. There was a disconcerting intensity to their blank gazes - as if he were some large bovid who had wandered unknowing into the midst of a carnosaur pack. It had been a long time since anything had looked at him that way, and he shivered in delight. 'They say, in the lands of milk and sorrow, that those pale echoes of our brothers now gone know no fear,' he said to Arrian. 'It saddens me to think of it .'
As he spoke, one of hounds stepped forward, setting herself between them and the doorway beyond. She crossed her muscular arms, and gazed steadily at them. 'Igori,' Arrian said. There was an odd sort of respect in his tone, Oleander thought. He bridled at it. Arrian was free to consider the creature his equal, but Oleander was under no such obligation.
'You're new,' Oleander said , looking down at the woman - Igori, Arrian had called her. He sniffed, and grimaced. 'But I can tell you're one of his. I can smell it from here. '
Igori said nothing. Her face was square. It might as well have been chiselled out of marble. Everything about her was perfect. Too perfect, too symmetrical. As if she were nothing more than a machine of meat and muscle. "

As we see, certainly female. Certainly very powerful, easily a match for a Space Marines in strength and toughness. But it is important to note that even these Gland-Hounds are only borne of "partial gene-seed implantation", or Fabius' own "lesser form of gene-seed".

This lends credence to genetically augmented females being possible, as I have maintained alongside Ezra. As for them being actual Astartes? Not so.

@Ynneadwraith - I fully accept and return the apology. I understand that I argued for far longer than I probably should have, and that we are both free to interpret fluff as mutably as we each choose to. It is, as you said, one of 40k's very good factors. For me, I do support people's own creation of fluff, but for me, it rubs me up the wrong when when it counters what I see as outright statements, ie blue being blue, up being up, etc etc. Again, my apologies for dragging this out. I've taken a step back to avoid instigating much else.

For me, I have no intention of hounding anyone out. If OP was dead set on having female marines, and didn't actually care for established lore, I have nothing to say but go for it. It's only when this question is brought into lore forums, and directed as a "I like the lore but..." statement that rises a reaction. For me, I would expect to see actual lore discussed in this particular forum, and only for actual canon lore, with that being the only arbiter. As current lore stands, assuming it's immutable, female Space Marines are not possible. But if OP doesn't want to listen to lore, or they do believe in the mutability of that line, who am I to stop them, as a random person on the internet?
My only real issue was that in a lore discussion, the lore itself was being ignored and seen as inappropriate in a lore discussion.

In response to your query of "Why is it that you feel so strongly about not having female Space Marines?", and "hasn't provided an explanation for why he deems that particular piece of fluff to be so important", it's just simple - I see that the lore is, without exceptional reason, immutable. I value the lore, and if it is immutable, like the statement of females not being able to be Space Marines, I'll default to the lore taking priority. Especially in a lore discussion.
I feel strongly about it because I feel the lore to around the issue be immutable and of high priority in a lore discussion.

I hope that clears up the question.

Likewise thankyou for the considered response

Perhaps it will help to frame the discussion using something else from the fluff that is comparable, and that other people can possibly use as a bridge to relate to the situation with female Space Marines and why I think it's unfair and unjustified.

There is a statement within the 'lore' (5th ed. SM Codex) that states that no matter what other Space Marines do, no matter how hard they try, they will never be Ultramarines (or words to that effect). So, what that suggests is that no matter what you do to your dudes, no matter how successful your chosen chapter is, they will never be as good as Ultramarines. They will never be 'the genuine article'. Which is, quite frankly, a pile of horse sh*t.

Absolutely agreed. Terrible writing, absolutely abysmal treatment to other Chapters. No argument in that this was a pile of gak.

However, it is an absolute statement in the lore, unless you want to go down the road of different bits of lore being more or less immutable than others.

This is where I beg to differ. Yes, it *was* an absolute statement, and has since been reamended. Spiritual Liege isn't mentioned at all in the new Codex, and we don't see anything about other Chapters never being Ultramarines. It's far less C: UM than it used to be, which I'd say is for the better. It has been amended, unsupported - there's clash of canon now.
Much like with the Goto examples (of which there are two many to name), one must look at conflicting fluff, and make the logical deductions as to which fluff is more recent, more specific, and more numerous. Under this logic, backflipping Terminators are ruled out, Spiritual Liege-ism is ruled out, the half-Eldar Librarian of the Ultramarines is ruled out.
Note that this process is only undergone when fluff clashes.

In the case of FeMarines, there is no clash. Nothing has changed in that geneseed is not compatible with the female body. It's not changed, and we see no female Astartes at any given point in the canon. There's no clash - the only thing that conflicts with it is real life. Not anything in the universe we are in given.

How do you (not just you, but others reading this comment too) feel that your chosen Space Marines are outright stated to 'not be as good as the Ultramarines'. It's annoying isn't it? It's insulting, if anything. It is justifiably ignored.

Now, take that feeling and put it into the context of someone being told that no matter what they do their female genetically modified warriors that are 100% identical to Astartes aside from being female, can never genuinely be Astartes. It's exactly the same logical process, yet this particular statement is held up so strongly when the previous one is happily ignored.

Can you see why that is unfair? Can you see why that doesn't make sense?

I displayed that the 5th Edition fluff is no longer relevant, whereas the FeMarine fluff (or lack of it) is still relevant. There is no in-universe conflict of sources. It is unanimously shown that women cannot be Astartes.
Call it technobabble, call it whatever, but it is uncontested canon. Nothing countermands it or contests it, unlike "Spiritual Liege Guilliman".

That's the difference here.

If the lore bans you from doing it, break the lore. Go ahead, it's up to you, the hobbyist. Just don't pretend that your break from the lore is actual canon.

Now. I don't mind if you feel like both statements are gospel, because they are both written down as statements of fact in the lore. However, when you get fluff topics about cool things Dark Angels have done, you don't get 10 pages of people stating 'yeah they're cool, better even, but they will never be Ultramarines'. And then justifying that stance by saying 'but it says so in the lore'.

Lore that is contested. FeMarines are not contested.

The combination of those two points is why I am certain that people treat female Space Marines strangely compared to any other piece of fluff (or lore, if you see it that way). It's not just that some people take each thing written down as sacrosanct (because that's just how some people like to interpret it which is fine), but it's that so many people will specifically go out of their way to state again and again the equivalent of 'all those reasons they are cool is nice...but they will never be Ultramarines'.

Except that the Ultramarine situation has not been unanimous in all of 40k's history, and that it has since changed from 5th Ed.
FeMarines has never existed in canon.

That's why I keep asking why people feel so strongly about this particular piece of lore. Because there are other pieces of lore that actually effect more people that people don't give a toss about, and I don't think it's fair or logical.

I hope my response shed light on this.

Also, in response to the "White Ultramarines" argument - it's absolutely and completely logical for a company of Ultramarines to repaint their armour for their captain. More acceptable in the Legion era, but in 40k still possible. However, two things:

1) Painting full armour is unheard of, and would likely result in disciplinary action. If they refused to amend their colour scheme, they would most likely be exiled, leading to...
2) Becoming separate to the Ultramarines. Either through choice, force, or exile, they cease to become actual Ultramarines, and a new faction - the Lions of Ultramar. So no, we don't have White Ultramarines. We have White Lions of Ultramar. They may be descended from the Ultramarines, even have been born into their ranks, but once they change their armour permanently, they cease to be Ultramarines.

Thankyou for at least proving your integrity that you will argue against white Ultramarines. I believe you will be in a minory unfortunately, compared to thise that will contest female Space Marines. That is something that will have to be demonstrated on way or the other by experiment.

Also, i am disputing the lack of female Space Marines, as is everyone in this thread who stated they were ok with it.

I feel i should make a qualification at this point. I never wanted to say that female space marines are a legitimate piece of the lore (not until it's actually written down). However, i do want them to be treated exactly the same as any other break from the lore by the people in this community, which they aren't (as evidenced by the weight of anecdotes about how they're treated differently from others, and the admission by Machu who has been one of my staunchest opponents).

You, my friend, are a wonderfully unbiased exception unfortunately, one response doesn not make a cumminity backlash.

I hope that makes it clearer

No, I completely understand what you mean. I share your opinion that a lore break should be treated equally, and recognise that it's not a universal one. To each their own, and all that jazz.

It has been a pleasure discussing this, but I feel this is where, at least for me, I have said all I need to.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
i do want them to be treated exactly the same as any other break from the lore by the people in this community, which they aren't (as evidenced by the weight of anecdotes about how they're treated differently from others, and the admission by Machu who has been one of my staunchest opponents)

I don't see myself as your opponent. Also not sure what I "admitted" - I never argued that the femarine concept received the same amount of pushback as other ideas diverging from the published background or that this didn't have something to do with gender. You have repeatedly stated that you can't think of any explanation for this other than 40k fans being sexists. And I have repeatedly offered another explanation. By characterizing me as your opponent, are you saying that you absolutely reject my explanation such that you can still only explain it by accusing 40k fans of sexism?

Manchu wrote:
I actually thought a little about this one last night. It would have been a good one in past years. As it stands, we now know more about the missing Primarchs/Legions. For one thing, the Legions were around even if the Primarchs were missing. Second, we know that at least one of the missing Legions was folded into the UM. So that means the constituent SM were themselves all-male, if you accept that the missing Legions operated the same way as other SM (i.e., that they were in fact actually SM).

As far as I know the only time someone suggested that the Ultrarmarines absorbed one of the missing Legions was during a discussion between bitter Word Bearers. The author (Aaron Dembski-Bownden) said that it was only supposed to be in universe rumour and not fact.

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
only supposed to be in universe rumour and not fact

In other words, BL editors changed their minds LOL. It shouldn't be on the authors to "clarify" stuff like this.

But it doesn't change the analysis for the purposes of this thread. The only way it could have been a credible rumor is if the SM in question were all-male, which at least some of the WBs would actually have had personal knowledge of anyway.

On the Ultramarines thing..

All of the Games that Feature them.. Painly state that the greatest of the Spacemarines are the Ultramarines..

Which I would take as lore that there is no greater Spacemarine Chapter than the Ultramarines

Manchu wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
but being told you cannot do something on the basis of gender is the very definition of sexism

As you know, the proffered explanation is about biology. Is it sexist to tell genetic males that they cannot ovulate?

As I mentioned several pages back, I would be happier if the in-universe explanation was simply sexism, just like the in-universe explanation of SoB is sexism.

It is sexist to tell someone that they cannot do something in a fictional universe because of a fictional reason they feel particularly strongly about for no logical in-universe reason.

I'm sorry to quote a PM, but it is particularly fitting:

It takes a certain amount of self-awareness to realize that by defending a fictional thing on fictional principles you might be missing what's actually important to you about that fictional thing

This is one of those times when self-awareness regarding the legitimacy of this particular piece of fiction due to pseudoscience technobabble 'biology', is missing the point that it's just technobabble and not based on anything solid in real life that would actually prevent something absolutely (such as telling a male that they cannot ovulate). If you really want to, you can quite easily have a male ovulating in 40k by making up some technobabble about how it's possible and it would be as legitimate as any other piece of fan-made fluff that is given a reasonable degree of legitimacy by GW's general attitude towards fluff. However, for some reason that cannot be explained in-universe, that process which works on everything else is discarded when it comes to female Marines.

I would absolutely and utterly agree that it would be better to explain the lack of female Marines in the fluff by in-universe sexism than anything else. It fits a lot more with the general tone of the universe, and people would be a lot less touchy if you were to bend it for their dudes

Manchu wrote:

I think the word "trolling" has caused more confusion than necessary - that's my fault so sorry for mixing the concepts. I was (mis)using the word to characterize teasing, bullying, excluding, making fun of - I am using "marginalization" to encapsulate that experience BTW.

Fair enough no harm done, although can you see how the continual and illogical statement that DizzyStorey's female Marines are a fluff impossibility, meaning that if she makes them they cannot coexist with other people's armies in that person's eyes, is an example of marginalisation as you have defined it (specifically exclusion)?

Manchu wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
Spot on the money as to why this is important.

Actually it's a complete non sequitur considering no one at all is arguing that "strong female characters" should not be represented in 40k.

It's not a complete non-sequitur because it makes some very, very valid and important points about the genuine effects of marginalisation on existing populations that struggle to find acceptance. One of those populations is represented here by DizzyStorey. I'm not saying anyone here is as bad as that, or should feel bad or anything. It's just something to potentially be aware of.

Manchu wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
It's another thing being told that you physically cannot convert female versions of your figures and have them be included and accepted into the universe

Can you quote ITT where someone posted this?

Apologies to anyone copied here as I don't mean to single you out or anything, I just need some evidence. It's not one person that makes up a community response, but one person's second-thoughts can help reduce one. Anyway, sorry again!

For these, I have omitted any comments I've found that have prefaced what they're saying with 'from a lore perspective it doesn't work, but do what you want with the army'. I've also spoilered and anonymised them so as not to be inciting or name dropping or anything. I've also tried to stop from quoting things when the same person has just simply repeated a statement without suggesting some new information, or responding to a different comment.

Manchu wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
i do want them to be treated exactly the same as any other break from the lore by the people in this community, which they aren't (as evidenced by the weight of anecdotes about how they're treated differently from others, and the admission by Machu who has been one of my staunchest opponents)

I don't see myself as your opponent. Also not sure what I "admitted" - I never argued that the femarine concept received the same amount of pushback as other ideas diverging from the published background or that this didn't have something to do with gender. You have repeatedly stated that you can't think of any explanation for this other than 40k fans being sexists. And I have repeatedly offered another explanation. By characterizing me as your opponent, are you saying that you absolutely reject my explanation such that you can still only explain it by accusing 40k fans of sexism?

Sorry, I knew that was the wrong word to use but I couldn't think of the right one! I prefer 'partner in discussion' as you've been most helpful in helping me get to the bottom of this

As a clarification, I don't reject your explanation (provided it's the symbol-of-trolling one which I thought held up quite well). I'm not sold on the marginalisation thing, as I can see that explaining Ginsu's comments of 'don't bring your politics into my 40k', although I think that quote was actually used against him. However, Ginsu was one voice among many, many other posters such that I think that 'feeling marginalised' isn't a very strong explanation for the community reaction.

Apologies if I wasn't clear in this quote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
i do want them to be treated exactly the same as any other break from the lore by the people in this community, which they aren't (as evidenced by the weight of anecdotes about how they're treated differently from others, and the admission by Machu who has been one of my staunchest opponents)

What I meant by that is that both myself and yourself agree that femmarines are treated differently (by generating more pushback than anything else), and that this is because the concept involves gender. This is the statement of yours I was agreeing with:

Manchu wrote:

But like I said, we both already agree that the femarine concept (a) generates the most pushback and (b) this is because the concept involves gender.

Now, I must say that I feel that we've got as far as we can in this debate without actually supporting things with harder evidence, and by continuing it further we risk just getting caught up in arguing back and forth without getting anywhere. I don't want anyone to think that I'm just saying my bit and then dropping the mic, so if anyone has any further comments about my little experiment or anything I've said thus far then I'll be happy to acknowledge them and take them into consideration

I'm just moving that now's as good a point as any to pack up and wait for some actual proper evidence to come in

I really, really, really want to add that I don't think anyone here's been out of order in the things they've said, or is to be singled out for their behaviour, or anything that would result in me appearing to be looking down on anyone else. Believe it or not, I really think this discussion has been valuable, even if we don't do any experimentation to take this further. I don't want to discourage anyone from discussing 40k lore whatever the degree of enthusiasm, and I really hope that I haven't offended anyone or made anyone feel bad because that's not what I want to do at all! I'm just as likely as the next person to be doing things unconsciously that are due to biases I'm not aware of. TBH all I wanted to do was point it out at the start and have people stop and think 'is this what's driving my thought process?'

It's all got rather out of hand!

Ha well I am certainly not defending the fluff in question. Maybe you missed where I explicitly criticized it:

But someone decided to "rationalize" the exclusively male SM ranks by appeal to fictional technosorcery, which in turn exists solely for the sake of that rationalization. It's a fluff tautology - there is no reason to accept it apart from the fact that it exists. And its existence is entirely and always provisional. So of course it's weak and unconvincing.

Again, this is why I'd prefer if the in-universe reason that SM are all-male be sexism.

The idea of a hidebound institution that persists in doing things the way they have always been done? Yep, that's the IoM alright.

Manchu wrote:
Ha well I am certainly not defending the fluff in question. Maybe you missed where I explicitly criticized it:

But someone decided to "rationalize" the exclusively male SM ranks by appeal to fictional technosorcery, which in turn exists solely for the sake of that rationalization. It's a fluff tautology - there is no reason to accept it apart from the fact that it exists. And its existence is entirely and always provisional. So of course it's weak and unconvincing.

Again, this is why I'd prefer if the in-universe reason that SM are all-male be sexism.

The idea of a hidebound institution that persists in doing things the way they have always been done? Yep, that's the IoM alright.

Aha I did miss that! Yeah that makes a lot more sense for me than the biological technobabble, and would also make it less controversial to flaunt which would help everyone I think

Manchu wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
I'm not quite following what you mean by 'begging the question'. Can you explain?

Begging the question means assuming the conclusion. Like I said, your actual hypothesis is "the femarine concept generates the most pushback because the people pushing back are sexist." You would be assuming your conclusion by defining pushback to the femarines concept as sexist.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
we cannot say "Topics A and B are both controversial but only Topic A has to do with gender. If Topic A has more pushback than Topic B then it must be because Topic A involves gender"

i meant that as an example of a sound argument - although sure your qualification ("probably involves gender") is better. But like I said, we both already agree that the femarine concept (a) generates the most pushback and (b) this is because the concept involves gender. Where we disagree is, you believe the operative factor is the sexism of 40k fans - whereas I believe the operative factor is this phenomenon of marginalization (including but not limited to "colonization") which created 40k fans - and all nerds - to begin with.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
However, finding another subject that is similar to female Space Marines in the 'history for trolling' department would help make the results stronger.

I don't think there is anything even remotely like the concept of femarines for this purpose because it is so strongly tied to a specific trend in mainstream political culture. However, if you wanted to test whether 40k fans are sexist, maybe you could start a thread about an all-female IG regiment and see how that goes. But of course, I can tell you the result: posters will say "that already exists in the fluff."

 Crimson wrote:
Gender representation in 40K is gak, and yes, it is kinda sexist. This does not mean that liking 40K makes you sexist, but denying that there is a problem probably does.

Oh please yourself.

Manchu wrote:
And if anything about 40k - as a product line - is sexist, it is definitely the lack of Guardswomen models. That is an example of applicably "dragging politics into it."

Manchu wrote:
... contrast this to the inexcusable lack of Guardswomen figures - while political, this is also a non-theoretical concern: (1) Guardswomen are not headcannon and (2) there is current, demonstrable market demand for Guardswomen models.

 Crimson wrote:
Manchu, could you stop derailing this thread with your politics?

Manchu wrote:
The only politics I've dragged into this thread involves advocating female IG figs - but you're right, that's off-topic (I only brought it up because it was a useful counter example).

 DizzyStorey wrote:
Nerds are the dominant culture at the moment.

Not at all. The dominant culture has started to consume IPs that were produced by nerd culture. That does not make mainstream people nerds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DizzyStorey wrote:
I believe the Tau are complicated. I think they believe the Ethereals are the only ones capable of bringing the greater good but that if you agree with them you can be assigned a place within the empire ( under the ethereals of course ) ware you are free to progress and prove yourselves worthy.

If the Greater Good is just this simple, rational concept that is race-blind ... then why are the Ethereals necessary? Why is it that only the Ethereals can shepherd the Empire in the path of the Greater Good?

More people are self identifying than nerds than ever before though. Cause these mainstream adaptions are reaching more viewers and people than ever before, finding super hero, gaming or starwars merchendise in a store is no longer a specialty thing but is just normal, It is very influential in todays world. Nerd culture is no longer this minor oppressed group, if somebody is made fun of for liking video games or comic books it would be met with confusion.


And keep in mind the ethearials led the Tau from the stone age to a technological powerhouse in only a thousand years, I can see why they would believe that they and they only could lead the galaxy to a better future.

 DizzyStorey wrote:
More people are self identifying than nerds than ever before though.

I get to do another "in my day" post LOL. In my day, people did not self-identify as nerds. A nerd was identified by others via ostracization. Nerds exist because other people excluded them. They retreated into fantastical worlds as an escape. They made up games and told stories to create a refuge from the mainstream that rejected them. Now the mainstream consumes those games and stories. By self-identifying as nerds, normies are once again kicking the nerds out - this time out of being "nerds." Nothing jas really changed.

Ethereals - sure, fanatical loyalty to the Ethereals makes sense for the Tau. Before the Ethereals, the Tau race was teetering on the break of extinction by suicide ... or at least that is the history promoted by the power structure dominated by the Ethereal caste. But why does Ethereal domination make sense to Vespid or Kroot or humans? The Ethereals are not the saviors of these races. Plus, like I said, if the Greater Good is race-blind then why are only Tau qualified to actually rule the Empire?

And the Tau weren't in the stone age, they had black powder weapons. From there it took them another 1000 years to get to their current tech level Took e'm 2000 years to go from prehistoric to black powder, so still pretty fast.

I think Tau are meant to be kinda a look at humanity to say, look at how advance we could of been if it wasn't for our real world politics, religions and wars

GodDamUser wrote:
I think Tau are meant to be kinda a look at humanity to say, look at how advance we could of been if it wasn't for our real world politics, religions and wars

Ha so we could have reached out to the stars ... to get rekt by civilizations built on religion and war!

This whole "They aren't actually nerds! They just call themselves nerds" Is called elitism and if anything I think nerds nowadays have become the bullies in so many cases, especially involving racism and sexism within the nerd communities, allegations of feminists in gaming getting rape threats and death threats and people being chased out of chatrooms cause they are pinned as a "Fake gamer girl" Is just... well its horrible, and by no means are nerds these victims we hear people say they are.

GodDamUser wrote:
I think Tau are meant to be kinda a look at humanity to say, look at how advance we could of been if it wasn't for our real world politics, religions and wars

No.


The Tau were created to sell models to robot-obsessed weebs. And, I suspect, to troll the hardcores who are all about GRIMDERP and MEHTAL.

as someone who has received death threats I find them vastly overrated; meanwhile in real life nerds are tortured by their peers every day

GW has been so out of touch/outright hostile to customers for such a long time, it is hard to imagine a time when they were trying to capitalize on market trends, like burgeoning interest in anime

Manchu wrote:

 DizzyStorey wrote:
More people are self identifying than nerds than ever before though.

I get to do another "in my day" post LOL. In my day, people did not self-identify as nerds. A nerd was identified by others via ostracization. Nerds exist because other people excluded them. They retreated into fantastical worlds as an escape. They made up games and told stories to create a refuge from the mainstream that rejected them. Now the mainstream consumes those games and stories. By self-identifying as nerds, normies are once again kicking the nerds out - this time out of being "nerds." Nothing jas really changed.

Ethereals - sure, fanatical loyalty to the Ethereals makes sense for the Tau. Before the Ethereals, the Tau race was teetering on the break of extinction by suicide ... or at least that is the history promoted by the power structure dominated by the Ethereal caste. But why does Ethereal domination make sense to Vespid or Kroot or humans? The Ethereals are not the saviors of these races. Plus, like I said, if the Greater Good is race-blind then why are only Tau qualified to actually rule the Empire?

I dont know how old you are but when I was growing up this was never the case, nerds were just one of many social circles of self identifier labels and were no less or more important than anyone else, although those who self identified as nerds were often elitist, looking down on others and ostrisizing anyone who tried to enjoy there hobbies, i remember one occasion ware i was told not to play magic the gathering cause i was too stupid to keep up. So no i dont believe in the victim complex that nerds are these ever underdogs and the downtrotten of society. they are like everyone else, some are dicks, some are cool and for the most part they use pointles slabels to self identify... I dont even use the term nerd anymore.


Oh and about the Ethereals.
The way the Tau see it is when you join the empire you are basically apart of the force that serves the eathereals, you are basically a pawn for the greater good, you are given something to believe in and put to work. ITs not equality but it sure beats some of the evil horrible stuff everyware else in the galaxy.
Basically I think they view it not on a race by race basis but on a unity basis, get everyone under a single caste is the best chance the galaxy has for "The greater good" they have faith in the ethereals so they assume everyone else should too.
So they are race blind, to a point. Afterall they cant be too utopian, they are entitled to some selfishness no? The ethereals are in charge not cause they are tau but cause they are the ethereals if that makes any sense? at least thats how the other races will see it. And whatever they are doing its sorta working they did save the Tau so I can see why they have such faith in them.

Put this way? I think "Your good but not as good as the ethereals" Is much more progressive than "Die Xenos scum! For the Empra!"

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
I think Tau are meant to be kinda a look at humanity to say, look at how advance we could of been if it wasn't for our real world politics, religions and wars

No.


The Tau were created to sell models to robot-obsessed weebs. And, I suspect, to troll the hardcores who are all about GRIMDERP and MEHTAL.

Why not both