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.
Niiai wrote: Is it as massive core retcon to make space marines being based on females? For me it would be a very small retcon. I think perhaps there the crux of the problem is.
Agreed - to some people it matters. To others, not so much. Neither is wrong.
Every time this subject comes up there is always this little tappdance. The people who do not like the change make an argument, either in the fluff or outside the fluff. Upon taking a close examination of the argument it does not stand up to examination. The next argument gets launches. Upon closer examination the argument does not stand up to examination. A third argument gets launched etc.
And vice versa. It's not just the opposers who make bad arguments - changers do too.
It is always this tap dance. Some one gets frustrated with the adnasium discussion and people starts attacking the players instead of the ball, or it gets out of hand in some other way. And then the thread closes, only to pop up another place. Look at the title of this thread 'Re:Ashes of Prospero spoilers'. Currently we are not discussing Ashes or Prospero.
To be fair, the OP is mainly about the female thing anyways.
Buttom line is there are many bad arguments for not having space marines based on females, but not any good once. Continuing discussing this will just be one side swatting down the bad arguments from the other side, whereas the other side starts to dance and come up with new arguments.
Very subjective to say "bad arguments" and not mentioning that again, people see other arguments on the change side as as bad.
From how I'm reading what you're saying, you're very much implying that the opposers are in the wrong by default, and that there's no fault in the people advocating change. That hopefully isn't the case, but that's how it's coming across.
Albino Squirrel, at face value, that's very much exactly what it is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/02 19:47:42
Sgt_Smudge wrote: However, implying that everyone who doesn't like Female Space Marines "can't handle the change" is an incredibly reductionist, and some may argue, condescending, approach.
Not wanting things to change is pretty normal. I didn't want Necrons to be shoehorned into the Eldar background and when that was already done, I didn't want the Necrons to be changed from merciless automatons to emo-robot-space-Egyptians. I absolutely didn't wan to see a loyalist to Primarch return, nor did I want the Cawl to alter marine gene-seed to create super marines (nor did I want to see Klingons redesigned yet again, though that's not a matter for this forum.) But all that happened regardless. Then again, some changes can be good. The Primaris models are nice, Tau were a welcome addition to the setting and Ynnari seem potentially intresting.
Do you genuinely believe that's the only reason people don't want it?
No, some people unfortunately have other reasons too. But I don't want to assume more unsavoury motivations without any substantial evidence. (I am absolutely not talking about any specific individuals in this thread, only in general.)
Sgt_Smudge wrote: However, implying that everyone who doesn't like Female Space Marines "can't handle the change" is an incredibly reductionist, and some may argue, condescending, approach.
Not wanting things to change is pretty normal. I didn't want Necrons to be shoehorned into the Eldar background and when that was already done, I didn't want the Necrons to be changed from merciless automatons to emo-robot-space-Egyptians. I absolutely didn't wan to see a loyalist to Primarch return, nor did I want the Cawl to alter marine gene-seed to create super marines (nor did I want to see Klingons redesigned yet again, though that's not a matter for this forum.) But all that happened regardless. Then again, some changes can be good. The Primaris models are nice, Tau were a welcome addition to the setting and Ynnari seem potentially intresting.
Do you genuinely believe that's the only reason people don't want it?
No, some people unfortunately have other reasons too. But I don't want to assume more unsavoury motivations without any substantial evidence. (I am absolutely not talking about any specific individuals in this thread, only in general.)
I think one can appreciate the Marines as a boys only club without nesscarily being sexist. Me I'd rather they simply explain WHY Marines are "men only" and perhaps use it as a way to insert a degree of Grimdark into it.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
I think one can appreciate the Marines as a boys only club without nesscarily being sexist.
Oh absolutely! Though I think a lot of 'not wanting things to change' thing is about inertia and what we're used to. Though that is ultimately fine. I know I'm like that about other things.
Me I'd rather they simply explain WHY Marines are "men only" and perhaps use it as a way to insert a degree of Grimdark into it.
Well, I don't think there can be any better explanation than there already is. It is ultimately a made up explanation, and some people will find it unsatisfying regardless.
But if GW doesn't want to introduce female marines, the best thing to do would just introduce plenty of female models and characters to other ranges and give more spotlight to those factions. People are so obsessed about representation in marines, because 40K is like 90% about marines.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: However, implying that everyone who doesn't like Female Space Marines "can't handle the change" is an incredibly reductionist, and some may argue, condescending, approach.
Not wanting things to change is pretty normal. I didn't want Necrons to be shoehorned into the Eldar background and when that was already done, I didn't want the Necrons to be changed from merciless automatons to emo-robot-space-Egyptians. I absolutely didn't wan to see a loyalist to Primarch return, nor did I want the Cawl to alter marine gene-seed to create super marines (nor did I want to see Klingons redesigned yet again, though that's not a matter for this forum.) But all that happened regardless. Then again, some changes can be good. The Primaris models are nice, Tau were a welcome addition to the setting and Ynnari seem potentially intresting.
Do you genuinely believe that's the only reason people don't want it?
No, some people unfortunately have other reasons too. But I don't want to assume more unsavoury motivations without any substantial evidence. (I am absolutely not talking about any specific individuals in this thread, only in general.)
I think one can appreciate the Marines as a boys only club without nesscarily being sexist. Me I'd rather they simply explain WHY Marines are "men only" and perhaps use it as a way to insert a degree of Grimdark into it.
Yep. Hence my interpretation of the Emperor being a rather cruel narcissist. If you look at his actions during the unification wars, the great crusade and how he treated his "sons" then many today would consider him to be a tyrant, a monster. The fact he's considered to be humanity's best hope speaks volume about how dire the situation is.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Niiai wrote: Is it as massive core retcon to make space marines being based on females? For me it would be a very small retcon. I think perhaps there the crux of the problem is.
Agreed - to some people it matters. To others, not so much. Neither is wrong.
Every time this subject comes up there is always this little tappdance. The people who do not like the change make an argument, either in the fluff or outside the fluff. Upon taking a close examination of the argument it does not stand up to examination. The next argument gets launches. Upon closer examination the argument does not stand up to examination. A third argument gets launched etc.
And vice versa. It's not just the opposers who make bad arguments - changers do too.
It is always this tap dance. Some one gets frustrated with the adnasium discussion and people starts attacking the players instead of the ball, or it gets out of hand in some other way. And then the thread closes, only to pop up another place. Look at the title of this thread 'Re:Ashes of Prospero spoilers'. Currently we are not discussing Ashes or Prospero.
To be fair, the OP is mainly about the female thing anyways.
Buttom line is there are many bad arguments for not having space marines based on females, but not any good once. Continuing discussing this will just be one side swatting down the bad arguments from the other side, whereas the other side starts to dance and come up with new arguments.
Very subjective to say "bad arguments" and not mentioning that again, people see other arguments on the change side as as bad.
From how I'm reading what you're saying, you're very much implying that the opposers are in the wrong by default, and that there's no fault in the people advocating change. That hopefully isn't the case, but that's how it's coming across.
Spoiler:
Albino Squirrel, at face value, that's very much exactly what it is.
The default possition in any situation is neutral. Some one claims that space marines can not be made from females, that is a posetive claim, and that means they need to provide evidence for theur claim.
I am saying that none of the arguments presented are any good. If their argument does not stand up to examination we move back to the default position. The default position is there are no reason space marines can not be based on women.
The burden of proof is on the argument that deviates from the default. That is the side that says space marines can not be based on females. We are in fact not 'both arguing either side' because the side I am on is the default postion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/02 20:40:38
How is that the default position? The default position is that the setting remain unchanged. "Default" refers to the current state of the setting. It does not refer to whatever you believe the setting should be. You are taking your own opinion and claiming that is the default.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/02 20:47:02
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Because that side of the argument are making the posetive claim that this can not happen. Then they have to prove it. That is where all these bad arguments and tap dances come in.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/02 20:45:38
Niiai wrote: Because that side of the argument are making the posetive claim that this can not happen. Then they have to prove it. That is where all these bad arguments and tap dances come in.
You are making absolutely no sense whatsoever.
According to the current fluff, there aren't female space marines. I don't see how that's up for debate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/02 20:50:20
Niiai wrote: Because that side of the argument are making the posetive claim that this can not happen. Then they have to prove it. That is where all these bad arguments and tap dances come in.
I can prove the default position actually - it's the one GW have made.
I can prove why it can't happen - GW said so.
That's the default. Change for the sake of it isn't default in the slightest. To change, you should have a reason to, and explain why that reason outweighs the default (which is unchanged).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/02 20:57:45
Niiai wrote: Because that side of the argument are making the posetive claim that this can not happen. Then they have to prove it. That is where all these bad arguments and tap dances come in.
You are making absolutely no sense whatsoever.
According to the current fluff, there aren't female space marines. I don't see how that's up for debate.
Let me sum up the arguments so far.
Why can there be no female space marines? (Neutral position.)
They cannot be (possetive claim) It is not currently in the setting in the setting.
They have changed the setting many times though. So that is not really a good argument.
Why can there be no female space marines? (Neutral position.)
They cannot be (possetive claim) It is to odd for the science of it.
They grow 80 cm, get new muscel mass, a massive bonestructure upgrade, all organs get changed and they implant 13 new organs. So that is not really a good argument.
Why can there be no female space marines? (Neutral position.)
They cannot be (possetive claim) Space Marines are suppose to be angels.
Angels are gender neatrual and are often depicted very femenine. So that is not really a good argument.
Why can there be no female space marines? (Neutral position.)
They cannot be (possetive claim) It is based on Paradise Lost, there where no females there.
This is the angel argument all over again. And the similaraties to Paradise Lost ar really loose. 1st edition Source book even claims they are inspiered by Michael Moorcock as a big inspiration for Chaos. It draws heavily on Moorcock's “Man vs. Himself” theme and the issues related to Chaos, not paradise lost. Alsos sources says the plan was to dispose of the SM after their use was done, much like the previus wariors. The closest analagy to the angels are the custodians, that the emperor cared for. So that is not really a good argument.
Why can there be no female space marines? (Neutral position.)
They cannot be (possetive claim) The Emperor based them on his image, they need his DNA.
That is a lot like claiming they cannot be space marines because the subject has black hair. Some of the space marines even have canine DNA in there. So that is not really a good argument.
Why can there be no female space marines? (Neutral position.)
They cannot be (possetive claim) It would be to brutal to expose wimen like this. (I thought this one was bad, but it was said.)
Far worse is done to wimen in the setting. So that is not really a good argument.
So what are the remaining good arguments to deviate from the neutral position. In fact have one argument that stands up to examination so it can default from the neutral position.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I can prove the default position actually - it's the one GW have made.
I can prove why it can't happen - GW said so.
That's the default. Change for the sake of it isn't default in the slightest. To change, you should have a reason to, and explain why that reason outweighs the default (which is unchanged).
Though interestingly this time we're having this discussion because there is a hint in GW publication that the position could change. It probably is just Gav being cheeky, but who knows, they occasionally foreshadow fluff developments like this.
Well I will grant you the argument 'because there are currently no female space marines' is the current best argument for why there can be no female space marines, but it is not a good argument.
And while Crimson is right here, it is hinted in the book. It is also hinted elsewhere that more female models will be in the setting, though if this are SM or not we do not know.
Niiai wrote: Because that side of the argument are making the posetive claim that this can not happen. Then they have to prove it. That is where all these bad arguments and tap dances come in.
You are making absolutely no sense whatsoever.
According to the current fluff, there aren't female space marines. I don't see how that's up for debate.
It isn't. The whole argument is pushing goalposts on what is "allowed" to be an argument. Reading this thread has been painful.
Niiai wrote: Because that side of the argument are making the posetive claim that this can not happen. Then they have to prove it. That is where all these bad arguments and tap dances come in.
You are making absolutely no sense whatsoever.
According to the current fluff, there aren't female space marines. I don't see how that's up for debate.
It isn't. The whole argument is pushing goalposts on what is "allowed" to be an argument. Reading this thread has been painful.
If they never have a good argument it is not moving the goal post. All I want is one good argument. I would asume people would start with their best one. So far none has been presented.
You're deciding established lore are not good arguments. You're quite literally acting as a gatekeeper for this "argument" due to what is likely an emotional attachment to the setting "moving forward".
Edit: And I'm not saying that's WRONG, either. People are attached to the game and lore as it is, as well, and that's equally an emotional attachment. I'm just saying acting as the arbiter for what you claim has to be a "good point" makes the discussion moot, because you alone are the judge of that quality, and you won't accept others input without your own standard.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/02 21:31:09
Cephalobeard wrote: You're deciding established lore are not good arguments. You're quite literally acting as a gatekeeper for this "argument" due to what is likely an emotional attachment to the setting "moving forward".
Edit: And I'm not saying that's WRONG, either. People are attached to the game and lore as it is, as well, and that's equally an emotional attachment. I'm just saying acting as the arbiter for what you claim has to be a "good point" makes the discussion moot, because you alone are the judge of that quality, and you won't accept others input without your own standard.
OK.
So in order to keep the discussion healthy, and I think it has been good so far, can we agree on the default possition in this case? And then afterwards you can say what arguments presented opposed to the default possition you thought of as good.
If the response to all counterclaims is "that's not good enough" then there is no purpose to the discussion. Have fun screaming into the void that everyone is wrong.
I imagine it's a rather boring position.
Edit:
I have no hat in the ring here. I'm, relatively, indifferent. You're welcome to your thread, I am simply responding to that aspect of the conversation. Enjoy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/02 21:40:34
I don't even remember the last time someone used the words "Ashes" "Prospero" or "Spoilers" in this thread. Maybe it was on page one?
They can do whatever they like with the Space Marine Fluff. Just for gods sake don't make ANOTHER SPACE MARINE PLASTIC KIT.
All this whining is going to accomplish is getting another Space Marine kit out, meaning another release gets pushed back. We've got perfectly good _Female_ Eldar Aspect Warriors in desperate need of a kit. Go champion that if you want more plastic representation.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: the entire point of the Horus Heresy is to be Paradise Lost in space
You've never actually read Paradise Lost, have you?
If you had, you'd know that Milton described angels as able to assume either sex at will, or even both at once. He explicitly claimed that several pagan 'goddesses' were really fallen angels.
A little bit of righteous anger now and then is good, actually. Don't trust a person who never gets angry.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Default is unchanged - aka Space Marines being as they are right this moment.
But if I ask 'Why can not space marines be based upon females' you responce is 'that is the current setting'. Is that correct?
I'd say the laws of the setting dictate that such a thing is improbable to the point of impossibility.
Your response, as would be the only natural one to that question, is "we shouldn't we change the lore" - my response would be "why should we?" Yours is then the statement which requires evidence. After all - as the status quo, mine doesn't need validation, because it's the default.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Default is unchanged - aka Space Marines being as they are right this moment.
But if I ask 'Why can not space marines be based upon females' you responce is 'that is the current setting'. Is that correct?
I'd say the laws of the setting dictate that such a thing is improbable to the point of impossibility.
Your response, as would be the only natural one to that question, is "we shouldn't we change the lore" - my response would be "why should we?" Yours is then the statement which requires evidence. After all - as the status quo, mine doesn't need validation, because it's the default.
So the reasons why there no space marines can not be based upon females are this, please clearify if I am missrepresenting you here:
- I'd say the laws of the setting dictate that such a thing is improbable to the point of impossibility.
- It is currently in the setting.
Is that correct? I am not trying to lure you into anything here. I just want to uderstand you clearly.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: the entire point of the Horus Heresy is to be Paradise Lost in space
You've never actually read Paradise Lost, have you?
If you had, you'd know that Milton described angels as able to assume either sex at will, or even both at once. He explicitly claimed that several pagan 'goddesses' were really fallen angels.
It was a long time ago. It is likely that I forgot parts of it.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
CthuluIsSpy wrote: the entire point of the Horus Heresy is to be Paradise Lost in space
You've never actually read Paradise Lost, have you?
If you had, you'd know that Milton described angels as able to assume either sex at will, or even both at once. He explicitly claimed that several pagan 'goddesses' were really fallen angels.
It was a long time ago. It is likely that I forgot parts of it.
Does not look so good for that particular argument though. Sorry, could not resist.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: the entire point of the Horus Heresy is to be Paradise Lost in space
You've never actually read Paradise Lost, have you?
If you had, you'd know that Milton described angels as able to assume either sex at will, or even both at once. He explicitly claimed that several pagan 'goddesses' were really fallen angels.
It was a long time ago. It is likely that I forgot parts of it.
Does not look so good for that particular argument though. Sorry, could not resist.
I still remember that Michael is referred to as a he quite often, so there's that.
I'll have to read up on it again. Its been a few years.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
CthuluIsSpy wrote: the entire point of the Horus Heresy is to be Paradise Lost in space
You've never actually read Paradise Lost, have you?
If you had, you'd know that Milton described angels as able to assume either sex at will, or even both at once. He explicitly claimed that several pagan 'goddesses' were really fallen angels.
It was a long time ago. It is likely that I forgot parts of it.
Does not look so good for that particular argument though. Sorry, could not resist.
I still remember that Michael is referred to as a he quite often, so there's that.
I'll have to read up on it again. Its been a few years.
OK. But more importantly, do you stil stand by that argument? Or am I mowing the goal post in this particular instance. As some body else pointed out I keep doing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/02 22:48:10