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.

 Gert wrote:
You keep saying those words and I really don't think you have any idea what they mean. Here's a hint, they mean nothing .
You can deny that sexism doesn't exist in the 40k hobby but you're doing nothing but damage by doing so.

Sadly you don't address my specific arguments, so I have no idea how to answer properly.
So, not having female SM is not sexist. It is simply what the universe is. If it does repel some people, why is this a problem? Do their lives depend on feeling welcomed by a fictional universe? Those are not mocking or rhetorical questions.
I do admit that the behavior of some players (but not characters or elements of lore) is not friendly or agreeable towards women and/or other groups. Is this a reason to change the lore? Not a rhetorical question.

Something doesn't have to be life threatening to be sexist. It is sexist? yes, is it a big issue?

It is an issue if you are interested in 40k and want to introduce more people to it. It is an issue if you want to grow your gaming group. And also it is a design issue and arguably one of the reasons AoS has the better attention of GW (designers not constrained by corporate mandate are happy designers, so they are more likely to want to work on the more freer IP).

Then again, the game has so many design issues, balance issues and even marketing issues so it not what I would call a priority issue, but that doesn't mean it is okay. It is an issue.

Ok, let's address all the arguments, shall we?

1 - Yes, you can and should use hobbies to escape the pains of life. However, if certain people cannot gain entry to a hobby because of arbitrary reasons that can be taken away at any moment at no real cost then that is indeed an issue. Hobbies cater to psychological needs when they give people a chance to be happy.

2 - Pseudo-Marxist and other terms using the word "Marxist" are often invented and used by people with far-right views to scare those with more centrist outlooks to stay away from anything that isn't Conservative or Capitalist i.e. Socialised Healthcare or racial/gender/sex equality.

3 - As I have said, a core idea of 40k is having "Your Dudes" on the table. I can create Chapter Master Gertimus of the Pufferfish Warriors but a female player can't have Chapter Master Athena of the Flaming Blades because there are no female SM because of "genetics". It's the 41st millennium and gene-tailoring is widespread and common in the IoM. The only reason there aren't female SM in the modern day is that in the 80's/90's the female SM models didn't sell.

4 - If there was representation in the game there wouldn't be an issue about representation. Currently, female players have 1 faction where they can properly represent themselves and they only got the limelight for a month or two before SM were back on top.

5 - SM being male does not constitute the identity of 40k. 40k is a dark future where humanity lives in a horrific empire that is fighting everything else in the galaxy that also happens to be horrible, except maybe the T'au. Every human life is equally valued unless you have wealth and power in which case you are valued more or are a soldier in which case you are valued a little bit less. The Imperium doesn't care about race/sex/gender, only that you serve the Emperor. The flagship faction of 40k does not represent this well when its ranks are only made up of 50% of the species population.

6 - If you think that your argument can be dismantled by a group that is generally pro-equality and representation, then maybe it's not a good argument chief.

7 - Inclusivity by nature is centred around social groups you muppet. You can't have inclusivity if there aren't social groups.

8 - As for personal preference, just don't put female SM in your army. Done. Problem solved.

9 - If you are really going for the whole "but that's how it's always been" argument then there is literally nothing I will be able to say to make you change your mind. If you can't adapt and change your ideas to be more accomodating to others then there is no discussion to be had.

 Gert wrote:

Ok, let's address all the arguments, shall we?

1 - Yes, you can and should use hobbies to escape the pains of life. However, if certain people cannot gain entry to a hobby because of arbitrary reasons that can be taken away at any moment at no real cost then that is indeed an issue. Hobbies cater to psychological needs when they give people a chance to be happy.

2 - Pseudo-Marxist and other terms using the word "Marxist" are often invented and used by people with far-right views to scare those with more centrist outlooks to stay away from anything that isn't Conservative or Capitalist i.e. Socialised Healthcare or racial/gender/sex equality.

3 - As I have said, a core idea of 40k is having "Your Dudes" on the table. I can create Chapter Master Gertimus of the Pufferfish Warriors but a female player can't have Chapter Master Athena of the Flaming Blades because there are no female SM because of "genetics". It's the 41st millennium and gene-tailoring is widespread and common in the IoM. The only reason there aren't female SM in the modern day is that in the 80's/90's the female SM models didn't sell.

4 - If there was representation in the game there wouldn't be an issue about representation. Currently, female players have 1 faction where they can properly represent themselves and they only got the limelight for a month or two before SM were back on top.

5 - SM being male does not constitute the identity of 40k. 40k is a dark future where humanity lives in a horrific empire that is fighting everything else in the galaxy that also happens to be horrible, except maybe the T'au. Every human life is equally valued unless you have wealth and power in which case you are valued more or are a soldier in which case you are valued a little bit less. The Imperium doesn't care about race/sex/gender, only that you serve the Emperor. The flagship faction of 40k does not represent this well when its ranks are only made up of 50% of the species population.

6 - If you think that your argument can be dismantled by a group that is generally pro-equality and representation, then maybe it's not a good argument chief.

7 - Inclusivity by nature is centred around social groups you muppet. You can't have inclusivity if there aren't social groups.

8 - As for personal preference, just don't put female SM in your army. Done. Problem solved.

9 - If you are really going for the whole "but that's how it's always been" argument then there is literally nothing I will be able to say to make you change your mind. If you can't adapt and change your ideas to be more accomodating to others then there is no discussion to be had.

I'm not prepared to respond to all of the points, so only some of them.
1) I don't really see an issue. 40k is not the only hobby out there, I'm pretty sure that if you do want to feel represented and catered to you WILL find a hobby. If you think that what matters about a hobby is what good it does to people (and not its arbitrary details), than why strive to make a specific, single, arbitrarily picked hobby inclusive by changing its arbitrary details?
2) My use of the word 'Marxist' is conditioned by my desire to underline the stupidity that I see in only addressing the social side of things. I'm not far-right.
6) I am against dogmatism, so I focus on how, not what. The ways and means proposed by the leftists do not satisfy me. I am not against equality or representation per se, I am against specific strategies of enforcing them.
7) See point 2
8) Will I be justified if I refuse to play with an army with female SM? If not, why?
9) I'm not that stubborn and I CAN see myself accepting the idea of female space marines. But only if I find it sensible.

Rihgu wrote:

You think that the integrity of the game and its general line of aesthetics and lore can be thrown away for the sake of 'inclusivity'.

You're right, it can only be thrown away for the sake of sales.
Oh! Inclusivity helps drive sales in 2021. Well, I expect GW'll do this after all.

Nope. Basically, companies in 2021 use inclusivity to drive sales by either provoking a reaction from the right-wing brand of cancel culture (basically, all press is good press, this is why companies are still scrambling to cast the little clique of actresses that all the loud angry nerds love to hate, because if you put one of them in your movie you get a nice big stink over the inclusion of that actress, which is much much preferable to there being no buzz about your film at all) or they use it in the obvious way to widen the thing out to a larger audience than the traditional Young White Dudes target audience.

Seeing as many products (AAA video games, blockbuster movies and high-budget TV) have increased in the cost to produce massively, and Young White Dudes (young people in general really) have dropped off the face of the earth in terms of buying power, all those big mainstream entertainment categories need to aim wide to get the same profits they have become accustomed to.

GW doesn't at least currently seem to have that problem. Their customer pool, while colossal compared to the rest of the TT gaming market, is absolutely minuscule compared to the customer pool that you're aiming for if you're spending 300 million dollars on a blockbuster film. For GW, whose market segment is still pretty much limited to the classic Young White Dudes, a cancel culture temper tantrum from them actually WOULD significantly hurt their sales, unlike with a blockbuster film where that generally speaking helps sales as people who hear about the temper tantrum seem to go and watch movies to see what all the fuss is about.

Note - I don't want people to take this as a politics thing, it really isnt here. Cancel Culture is a politically agnostic phenomenon of social media, and plenty of entertainment properties of late have been increasingly employing the strategy of poking the bear in one direction or another to purposefully create free publicity for their products.

Firstly, if you can't defend the points you make, don't make them.
Secondly, let's have another go, shall we?
1 - Your solution to the situation is to tell people to leave and find something else. That's stupid.
2 - Again, utterly meaningless when you conflate "Marxism" with, "I think there should be an option for female SM". As with anyone who uses the term to describe anything but actual Marxist Communism you're just spouting buzzwords that get the fash riled up.
3 - You skipped all of the counter-points based on lore. That tells me you know the lore can and will change whenever GW wants it too and making an argument based on "but the lore" is worthless.
6 - Nobody is "enforcing" equality and representation. If you view people being equal and getting equal representation as enforcement then there is nothing I can say that will change your mind.
7 - Society is the collective experience of people. Hobbies are part of society. You literally cannot have one without the other.
8 - No because that's just being rude. If you believe so much that people should be allowed to do what they want with the hobby then denying a game because there's female SM makes you a hypocrite and rude.
9 - So female SM are only OK if they take another 20 years to be introduced and only if everyone agrees it's OK? With that attitude, you sound like the same people who didn't want to give women the right to vote.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Nope. Basically, companies in 2021 use inclusivity to drive sales by either provoking a reaction from the right-wing brand of cancel culture (basically, all press is good press, this is why companies are still scrambling to cast the little clique of actresses that all the loud angry nerds love to hate, because if you put one of them in your movie you get a nice big stink over the inclusion of that actress, which is much much preferable to there being no buzz about your film at all) or they use it in the obvious way to widen the thing out to a larger audience than the traditional Young White Dudes target audience.

Seeing as many products (AAA video games, blockbuster movies and high-budget TV) have increased in the cost to produce massively, and Young White Dudes (young people in general really) have dropped off the face of the earth in terms of buying power, all those big mainstream entertainment categories need to aim wide to get the same profits they have become accustomed to.

GW doesn't at least currently seem to have that problem. Their customer pool, while colossal compared to the rest of the TT gaming market, is absolutely minuscule compared to the customer pool that you're aiming for if you're spending 300 million dollars on a blockbuster film. For GW, whose market segment is still pretty much limited to the classic Young White Dudes, a cancel culture temper tantrum from them actually WOULD significantly hurt their sales, unlike with a blockbuster film where that generally speaking helps sales as people who hear about the temper tantrum seem to go and watch movies to see what all the fuss is about.

Note - I don't want people to take this as a politics thing, it really isnt here. Cancel Culture is a politically agnostic phenomenon of social media, and plenty of entertainment properties of late have been increasingly employing the strategy of poking the bear in one direction or another to purposefully create free publicity for their products.

AoS is way more inclusive thought, so while GW doesn't want a controversy on their hands, I do believe they are using AoS to increase their customer pool beyond the "Young White Dudes" demographic. After all one of the reasons GW dominates the TT market is because they are the introduction company to the TT market, because they are able to cast their net beyond the TT demographic.

And for the moment, I think AoS is serving that function better than 40k.

Aos Isn't just a different game, it's a different player base entirely. My first game of AoS was worlds better than my first game of 40k. 40k is filled with really angsty teen males, that don't really care about the social interaction piece.

AoS on the other hand is like playing a two player video game with a friend. It just feels, better. Your mileage may vary.

 Gert wrote:

Firstly, if you can't defend the points you make, don't make them.
Secondly, let's have another go, shall we?
1 - Your solution to the situation is to tell people to leave and find something else. That's stupid.
2 - Again, utterly meaningless when you conflate "Marxism" with, "I think there should be an option for female SM". As with anyone who uses the term to describe anything but actual Marxist Communism you're just spouting buzzwords that get the fash riled up.
3 - You skipped all of the counter-points based on lore. That tells me you know the lore can and will change whenever GW wants it too and making an argument based on "but the lore" is worthless.
6 - Nobody is "enforcing" equality and representation. If you view people being equal and getting equal representation as enforcement then there is nothing I can say that will change your mind.
7 - Society is the collective experience of people. Hobbies are part of society. You literally cannot have one without the other.
8 - No because that's just being rude. If you believe so much that people should be allowed to do what they want with the hobby then denying a game because there's female SM makes you a hypocrite and rude.
9 - So female SM are only OK if they take another 20 years to be introduced and only if everyone agrees it's OK? With that attitude, you sound like the same people who didn't want to give women the right to vote.

I can't defend the points now . Also, I want the argument to be progressive and open and allow me to rethink things. It's not about being right or making a strong point, I'm not making a case for myself, but for... discussion?..
3) Now, I never defended what GW did with lore. They are not entitled to it to that extent, and whatever they do can also be good or bad. Mostly it's been bad. It's not up to them to judge what's right. Primaris marines were a disasterous worsening of the lore AND gameplay.
6) Again, you are being dogmatic, it seems. Equality is not good per se (that would be absurd and unfounded). Equality may be good in a certain specific paradigm that would explain its value. You think that irrespective of context, equality is always a good thing, which is dogmatic and quasi-religious.
7) Then again, I object to only seeing the social side of things. You can't explain everything in terms of society.
8) If someone is allowed to field female SM or pink black templars, why can't I have the freedom to refuse the game? No hate, no rudeness, just a case of personal preference (that the other guy is also exercising).
1) Well, I do not find it that stupid, because I have stated in the first place that I see games as requiring me to commit to them, to conform to their confines. If I require the game to morph and adapt to whoever is not accepting it in its own state, that just erodes the game and its unique point. Now I see that this doesn't necessarily apply to the case of female space marines, but I wanted to reiterate nevertheless.

 Tyran wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

Nope. Basically, companies in 2021 use inclusivity to drive sales by either provoking a reaction from the right-wing brand of cancel culture (basically, all press is good press, this is why companies are still scrambling to cast the little clique of actresses that all the loud angry nerds love to hate, because if you put one of them in your movie you get a nice big stink over the inclusion of that actress, which is much much preferable to there being no buzz about your film at all) or they use it in the obvious way to widen the thing out to a larger audience than the traditional Young White Dudes target audience.

Seeing as many products (AAA video games, blockbuster movies and high-budget TV) have increased in the cost to produce massively, and Young White Dudes (young people in general really) have dropped off the face of the earth in terms of buying power, all those big mainstream entertainment categories need to aim wide to get the same profits they have become accustomed to.

GW doesn't at least currently seem to have that problem. Their customer pool, while colossal compared to the rest of the TT gaming market, is absolutely minuscule compared to the customer pool that you're aiming for if you're spending 300 million dollars on a blockbuster film. For GW, whose market segment is still pretty much limited to the classic Young White Dudes, a cancel culture temper tantrum from them actually WOULD significantly hurt their sales, unlike with a blockbuster film where that generally speaking helps sales as people who hear about the temper tantrum seem to go and watch movies to see what all the fuss is about.

Note - I don't want people to take this as a politics thing, it really isnt here. Cancel Culture is a politically agnostic phenomenon of social media, and plenty of entertainment properties of late have been increasingly employing the strategy of poking the bear in one direction or another to purposefully create free publicity for their products.

AoS is way more inclusive thought, so while GW doesn't want a controversy on their hands, I do believe they are using AoS to increase their customer pool beyond the "Young White Dudes" demographic. After all one of the reasons GW dominates the TT market is because they are the introduction company to the TT market, because they are able to cast their net beyond the TT demographic.

And for the moment, I think AoS is serving that function better than 40k.

Yep, I definitely think 40k is currently their Established Whale Consumers product, and AOS is much more geared to get new people in, which is why theyre putting more inclusivity into AOS. Because the pool of existing consumers that they could piss off, they already have pissed off with the launch of AOS, and to begin with they were less than 1/10th the size of the consumer pool they could piss off for 40k. Theyre much less concerned about Angry Gamer Fee-Fees with their various product lines that rely less on the nostalgia dollars to get sales.

You just need to compare how much easier it is to parse the basic rules and datasheets of AOS, Warcry, Underworlds, or Kill Team vs 40k, 30k, Necromunda to see the split. You can also see that comparatively the new kits for 40k are very often aimed at pleasing existing GW consumers vs the new kits for AOS which tend to include a higher percentage of "Spectacle Models" and a lower percentage of nostalgia-based kits and features that the existing GW consumer market cares more about like customization/intricate rules.

- GW owns the IP. You have no say and neither do I beyond what we buy. It is entirely up to them to judge what is and isn't right for their product.
- You are correct equality in all things is dumb but please point to where I said that. There should be no situation where someone's race/gender/sex/sexual orientation/religion precludes them from participating in a hobby. Pretending the 40k community has a problem with people who aren't straight, cis, white, and male does no good, and refusing to even consider a change to the hobby that would make it easier for those people to try the hobby isn't a good look.
- Yes you cannot explain everything in terms of societal impact but if you are making an argument that pertains to a sociological issue then you can't ignore the societal impact both of and on 40k.
- If you are refusing them the game on grounds of "I don't think your army should exist", that's kind of rude my guy.
- I don't know how to explain that you should care about other people.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Animus wrote:
I think people should stop trying to change everything into a homogenised mass.
Space Marines should not be changed just because people who don't like Space Marines hope they'd like them more by changing them.
"Representation" is frankly a joke, the majority of people can empathise with other people just fine. I never couldn't get into a Kung Fu movie because I'm not Asian, or listen to a girl band because I'm not a woman. It's narcissistic to need to see yourself reflected in everything.

In my country we are literally trying to make police view people of dark skin color as humans, and teach others not to hit old Asian women in the heads with hammers. We just had a leader who literally said most people immigrating to this country are bad people. We have people in this country that are afraid of vaccines because a former playboy model said they cause autism. We do not, nor have we ever, been "just fine" at sympathizing with others. Rascism and sexism exist, and the sooner you understand that, the sooner you can start helping to stop it.

If only I'd know female space marines would solve all that I'd have advocated for them.
You don't have to beat all fiction into shape to attempt to solve real world issues.
Most people are just fine at empathising with others, those who can't do it or won't do it will not magically be corrected by female space marines.

 Gert wrote:

Is it narcissistic to want to be treated equally?

In even fiction? Yes, absolutely. Equality is equal rights and responsibility under the law. Enjoying all things equally is not a right, nor is being represented in all things. If a Jew born and raised in New York enjoys Seinfeld more than me, then more power to him.

TBF I think Necromunda (once it got going at least) has done quite well with representation and fairly fluid lore. Joining a gang is more about the lifestyle and personality than biological gribbles. If you are an Escher at heart but are male you can still join an Escher gang. They're still mostly women but the option exists and I really like that.

 Gert wrote:

- If you are refusing them the game on grounds of "I don't think your army should exist", that's kind of rude my guy.
- I don't know how to explain that you should care about other people.

I am refusing them the game on grounds of "I don't see myself enjoying a game with an army like that". Is this rude?
And where does the second thing come from?

Yeah I'm out of this discussion. There's too many people making too many bad faith arguments and its just depressing to read.

So, I can understand the aversion to a big retcon. "Oh yeah, there's ALWAYS been lady Marines!" would feel pretty weird.

But "Cawl, when he did Primaris, also figured out how to double the recruitment pool," seems the kind of thing that's a lot more acceptable. How much you like it will vary (some people enjoy Primaris, some people loathe them) but it'd be another setting change, rather than a retcon.

I, for one, would be all for it-the flagship franchise being more inclusive is a good thing! You probably wouldn't even have to modify the models that much-power armor isn't very tight on the body, in the exterior at least. It'd be mostly changes in unhelmeted heads.

 Gert wrote:
Yeah I'm out of this discussion. There's too many people making too many bad faith arguments and its just depressing to read.

You can't expect a reasonable discussion from people who use the term 'leftist' unironically in this day and age.

Blinkfox wrote:

 Gert wrote:

- If you are refusing them the game on grounds of "I don't think your army should exist", that's kind of rude my guy.
- I don't know how to explain that you should care about other people.

I am refusing them the game on grounds of "I don't see myself enjoying a game with an army like that". Is this rude?
And where does the second thing come from?

Because clearly a handful of models in an army having longer hair is so game ruining that the only thing you can do is pack up your toys and go home...

Lord Zarkov wrote:

Blinkfox wrote:

 Gert wrote:

- If you are refusing them the game on grounds of "I don't think your army should exist", that's kind of rude my guy.
- I don't know how to explain that you should care about other people.

I am refusing them the game on grounds of "I don't see myself enjoying a game with an army like that". Is this rude?
And where does the second thing come from?

Because clear
ly a handful of models in an army having longer hair is so game ruining that the only thing you can do is pack up your toys and go home...

It certainly sends *a* message

Animus wrote:I think people should stop trying to change everything into a homogenised mass.

Having women Astartes makes them a homogenised mass? Is the Space Marine identity really that shallow?

Space Marines should not be changed just because people who don't like Space Marines hope they'd like them more by changing them.

That's not what this is though. People *like* Space Marines, so much so that they want to customise and convert their own, with their own ideas of who they want in that iconic armour. These are people who *want* to like Space Marines, but dislike how there's a strong feeling that they are not welcome in the most iconic faction of the setting.

What kind of message does that send?

"Representation" is frankly a joke

Strange. I don't remember you having the authority to dictate what representation means to people.

the majority of people can empathise with other people just fine.

Are you the majority of people? If so, congratulations - that's why you don't understand what representation means to the minority.

I never couldn't get into a Kung Fu movie because I'm not Asian, or listen to a girl band because I'm not a woman.

...that's not what representation means though.

It's narcissistic to need to see yourself reflected in everything.

Spoken like someone who has never struggled to see your own reflection.

Tarvitz77 wrote:I feel a better solution to this would be to bring some of the neglected model lines up to date, as these are the lines that actually are always meant to have had women in them. Imperial Guard and Eldar both sorely need updating, and it would be a great opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. Make existing players happier that their factions are getting updated and make things more inclusive as well. I feel GW could also stand to reduce the marketing drive behind marines and distribute it around a bit better so they're not such a dominating presence that them not being inclusive is a problem. The Age of Sigmar equivalent to marines is at the forefront, but they're not nearly as pushed as the marines are.

Agreed, but I'd ideally like both. If there were a way to make Space Marines as iconic as, say, Genestealer Cults, sure, them being all male would be tolerable perhaps, but I simply don't see that happening. I'd love older lines (Eldar especially) to be updated, but not at the cost of not making women Astartes canon.

The only reason I would be pissed if a female marine line came out tomorrow would be because it was yet more marines when there are model lines desperately in need of an update.

Nah, that's a totally fair reason - I wouldn't like a whole new release range, but a headswap kit alone and an official statement of "hey, lore's updated" would go wonders. But a whole new release range? No thanks.

Blinkfox wrote:One thing all those 'equality'-thirsting people do is seeing the game as a continuation of all the social problems, powers and processes of real life.

The game is played by people in real life. The game of toy soldiers we play is played by real life people, with real life concerns, and real life people gatekeeping their entry into the community. Sorry, but that's something you can't ignore.

That is a distgusting form of pseudo-marxism.

Oh, you've been reading off of a buzzwords sheet - never mind, I thought this was a serious argument.

Blinkfox wrote:Wanting non-male SM solely because of a social problem you profess to exist makes you a pseudo-Marxist.

It does exist though. Can't ignore that point.

You are still commited to a set of restrictions for the sake of them

Why? Why do those restrictions exist?

Rihgu wrote:Also, the rhetoric in this thread about toy soldiers in a fictional universe is getting awful close to the rhetoric and verbiage used by... supremacists and nationalists... IRL. And if adding female space marines makes that kind of thing less likely to happen than I welcome them with even open-er arms than I did before!

Aye, that's pretty much what I'm seeing, and my attitudes to it.

Blinkfox wrote:So, not having female SM is not sexist. It is simply what the universe is.

The fictional universe, which has as much integrity as wet paper? The one where things can be rewritten on a whim, because it's a fictional setting designed to sell toys?

The "universe" doesn't exist. Using it's own existence to validate itself isn't an argument.

If it does repel some people, why is this a problem?

Why are you okay repelling people for their gender?

I do admit that the behavior of some players (but not characters or elements of lore) is not friendly or agreeable towards women and/or other groups. Is this a reason to change the lore?

Yes. It removes any sense of legitimacy in their reasoning. Remove the lore, and what do people who dislike woman Astartes have to support their opinions? Not the lore, that's for sure.

Tyran wrote:AoS is way more inclusive thought, so while GW doesn't want a controversy on their hands, I do believe they are using AoS to increase their customer pool beyond the "Young White Dudes" demographic. After all one of the reasons GW dominates the TT market is because they are the introduction company to the TT market, because they are able to cast their net beyond the TT demographic.

And for the moment, I think AoS is serving that function better than 40k.

Very true - AoS is looking increasingly like a more welcoming setting and environment, mostly because that the world they've created *is* a more welcoming setting and environment, despite also being full of all the same grim and dark stuff in 40k.

Animus wrote:Most people are just fine at empathising with others, those who can't do it or won't do it will not magically be corrected by female space marines.

But their arguments will be reduced to what I suspect it's always been - disliking women in their territory. They won't have lore to support their behaviour, won't have "but muh canon" - it will be reduced solely to "I just don't want women in my boys club".

And frankly, I don't think that's defensible.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Blinkfox wrote:Wanting non-male SM solely because of a social problem you profess to exist makes you a pseudo-Marxist.

It does exist though. Can't ignore that point.

Animus wrote:Most people are just fine at empathising with others, those who can't do it or won't do it will not magically be corrected by female space marines.

But their arguments will be reduced to what I suspect it's always been - disliking women in their territory. They won't have lore to support their behaviour, won't have "but muh canon" - it will be reduced solely to "I just don't want women in my boys club".

And frankly, I don't think that's defensible.

I might get immense amounts of hate for that, but if a certain club (not the whole community, a single club) does not want women (or any other social group) among them, it's fine. Anyway, that's just a side note.
As for the upper quote, I still think that foregrounding a social problem (let's agree that it exists exactly as you describe it, for the sake of argument), making it a reason for a lore change and considering other values or facts less important is... weird. Are we going to see social problems everywhere and change things in an attempt to allegedly 'make people more happy'? (even if some of them are against it)
Also, I don't really like the somewhat utilitarian vibe behind all of this (I mean the entire pro-female SM part of discussion).

(Once again I would like to note that I am not mocking, joking, or being snide or cynical. English is not my first language and I might not possess the best rhetoric talent)

Blinkfox wrote:I might get immense amounts of hate for that, but if a certain club (not the whole community, a single club) does not want women (or any other social group) among them, it's fine.

Why?

If they're actively working against including people, and making an environment toxic to keep people out on the basis of their gender, why is that acceptable behaviour?

Are we going to see social problems everywhere and change things in an attempt to allegedly 'make people more happy'? (even if some of them are against it)

When those "social problems" are allowed to excuse bigotry and toxic behaviours in the real world? Absolutely.

There is no excuse for the behaviour you describe (ie, a club deliberately making an environment toxic to keep women or other groups of people defined by anything other than their beliefs).

Also, I don't really like the somewhat utilitarian vibe behind all of this (I mean the entire pro-female SM part of discussion).

Utilitarian? What part is utilitarian?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Animus wrote:I think people should stop trying to change everything into a homogenised mass.

Having women Astartes makes them a homogenised mass? Is the Space Marine identity really that shallow?

Space Marines should not be changed just because people who don't like Space Marines hope they'd like them more by changing them.

That's not what this is though. People *like* Space Marines, so much so that they want to customise and convert their own, with their own ideas of who they want in that iconic armour. These are people who *want* to like Space Marines, but dislike how there's a strong feeling that they are not welcome in the most iconic faction of the setting.

What kind of message does that send?

"Representation" is frankly a joke

Strange. I don't remember you having the authority to dictate what representation means to people.

the majority of people can empathise with other people just fine.

Are you the majority of people? If so, congratulations - that's why you don't understand what representation means to the minority.

I never couldn't get into a Kung Fu movie because I'm not Asian, or listen to a girl band because I'm not a woman.

...that's not what representation means though.

It's narcissistic to need to see yourself reflected in everything.

Spoken like someone who has never struggled to see your own reflection.

Animus wrote:Most people are just fine at empathising with others, those who can't do it or won't do it will not magically be corrected by female space marines.

But their arguments will be reduced to what I suspect it's always been - disliking women in their territory. They won't have lore to support their behaviour, won't have "but muh canon" - it will be reduced solely to "I just don't want women in my boys club".

And frankly, I don't think that's defensible.

Yes, stripping part of the Space Marine's identity is homogenising them.
They're clearly not trying very hard to like them if the fact they're men is somehow off-putting.
Even stranger, I don't recall claiming to have any authority to dictate what representation means. I wonder how you pulled that from the aether.
I don't think there exists a minority of humans with no empathy, outside of psychopaths.
That's exactly what representation means. There's no one who looks like me in Seven Samurai, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy it. Honestly if you don't enjoy it merely on the basis that everyone is Japanese I'd think you're a racist.
True, I have been blessed to be born into a time and place where reflective surfaces are abundant.
So really you just want to make arguing on the internet easier for yourself despite the fact you're already convinced anyone who disagrees with you hates women. I must ask, if you've already drawn such a severe conclusion, then why even argue?

Removed, rule #1 please - BrookM

Blinkfox wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Blinkfox wrote:Wanting non-male SM solely because of a social problem you profess to exist makes you a pseudo-Marxist.

It does exist though. Can't ignore that point.

Animus wrote:Most people are just fine at empathising with others, those who can't do it or won't do it will not magically be corrected by female space marines.

But their arguments will be reduced to what I suspect it's always been - disliking women in their territory. They won't have lore to support their behaviour, won't have "but muh canon" - it will be reduced solely to "I just don't want women in my boys club".

And frankly, I don't think that's defensible.

I might get immense amounts of hate for that, but if a certain club (not the whole community, a single club) does not want women (or any other social group) among them, it's fine. Anyway, that's just a side note.
As for the upper quote, I still think that foregrounding a social problem (let's agree that it exists exactly as you describe it, for the sake of argument), making it a reason for a lore change and considering other values or facts less important is... weird. Are we going to see social problems everywhere and change things in an attempt to allegedly 'make people more happy'? (even if some of them are against it)
Also, I don't really like the somewhat utilitarian vibe behind all of this (I mean the entire pro-female SM part of discussion).

(Once again I would like to note that I am not mocking, joking, or being snide or cynical. English is not my first language and I might not possess the best rhetoric talent)

That kind of thing is really not okay, in any way shape or form. The hobby (and 40k) is for anyone who wishes to partake of it and we are strongly against any attempts to disbar people due to colour, gender, creed, sexuality or any other reason bar them espousing hate.

The thing you were just told not to do, you just did.
A private club can do what it wants but this thread is about GW introducing Female Marines and as such your post is little more than misogyny. Don't post like that on this forum if you wish to remain here - ingtær.

Animus wrote:Yes, stripping part of the Space Marine's identity is homogenising them.

In what way? Are they defined solely by their masculine heads? Is there no other part of their identity to the point that knowing that its not a masculine face under that helmet would ruin them?

They're clearly not trying very hard to like them if the fact they're men is somehow off-putting.

It's not the fact that they're men. It's the fact they're *only* men, and that you can't have anything other than men in the Flagship Faction.

No-one's trying to get rid of men. But what's so bad about women being part of the Flagship Faction?

Even stranger, I don't recall claiming to have any authority to dictate what representation means. I wonder how you pulled that from the aether.

Allow me to quote your comment:

"Representation" is frankly a joke

That very much sounds like you're saying that representation isn't important. On what authority do you make that claim?

I don't think there exists a minority of humans with no empathy, outside of psychopaths.

Empathy doesn't equate to representation. You clearly do not understand what representation means, but that's unsurprising, considering your self-confessed position as part of a social majority. However, I would have assumed that you may be empathetic yourself, towards people who do not feel represented as often as you are, and perhaps understand that you don't get to dictate if representation is, or is not, a joke.

That's exactly what representation means. There's no one who looks like me in Seven Samurai, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy it.

And that's exactly why you don't understand what representation means. Thank you for illustrating my point.

So really you just want to make arguing on the internet easier for yourself despite the fact you're already convinced anyone who disagrees with you hates women. I must ask, if you've already drawn such a severe conclusion, then why even argue?

Considering the red text posted just above me, I think perhaps I may have been exactly on the ball.

There's no argument here - just bad faith comments being trotted out, under the guise of "lore". I want to see comments defending *why* the lore should be held sacred, and if that's worth alienating an audience that feel excluded (rightfully so) from the Flagship Faction. So far, I'm seeing comments from people declaring that the lore is sacred because "it's the lore", or that we shouldn't follow the whims of people who feel excluded, either because they allegedly don't exist, or because "they don't deserve to be represented".

I don't think any of the arguments are exactly convincing me that they're coming from a thoughtful or considerate place.

I see we are nearing the end of the threads life. So I will throw out some thoughts before this gets locked.

To reiterate - Why do you need the flagship product (SM) to include women rather then create a new product (new faction) that includes women which will become a flagship product by the merit of it being awesome?

I think SOB can quite easily become the new flagship model range (they kind of have already?) And for all intents and purposes they are female space marines... Power armour human with bolters. Make them T4 for game purposes give them two wounds and be done with it..

Again... It just seems like lazy activism pushing an agenda...

Im sorry but I've read through the responses and the ensuing conversational and all I really see is a bunch of hyperbole, vileness and Ludacris mental gymnastics. It doesn't matter and its fake make believe fiction that has no reflection on the real world nor should it.

Its sad we have to tip toe around issues and any personal views that don't toe the line immediately get reported and labelled as <insetr offense buzzword> because someone's feelings get hurt.

Are people so weak willed they cant abide by words on the internet and get upset about every little thing?

Why do we entertain this attitude? Why allow people to make everything about them, and drag the world around them to their point of pathetic weakness?
I really find these views abhorrent.

As explained by many others almost nobody wants any more space marine models.. whether they have a male or female genitals.

How can you people not realise its a very sexist/racist view in the first place?

Do you people not think saying that women/ <insert group identity> will only feel included and want to play a game if there is a woman/<instert minority> model is in itself kind of insulting to women and minorities?

Do they need your approval of female space marines before they can play? How dare you say any specific category of human needs help simply because of the category of race/gender. This logic follows to its conclusion is abhorrent.. and that is what we call "the woke" and at its very core is basically dehumanising..

If you want your models certain way - go for it.

But why demand it on behalf of other people? What kind of ego do you have to think you speak on anyone's behalf but your own and categorise people in groups like everyone is the same..

This is absolute lunacy and the community really needs to start standing up for this nonsense.. I know many people are scared to speak up but by god its about time...

I love this community but this is becoming unbearable cringe fest... Just because some people in America think the world needs to be a certain way, does not mean the rest of the world has to conform and shut about it because we might hurt their feelings and allow this lunacy to go on. We are a global community ffs...

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Animus wrote:Yes, stripping part of the Space Marine's identity is homogenising them.

In what way? Are they defined solely by their masculine heads? Is there no other part of their identity to the point that knowing that its not a masculine face under that helmet would ruin them?

They're clearly not trying very hard to like them if the fact they're men is somehow off-putting.

It's not the fact that they're men. It's the fact they're *only* men, and that you can't have anything other than men in the Flagship Faction.

No-one's trying to get rid of men. But what's so bad about women being part of the Flagship Faction?

Even stranger, I don't recall claiming to have any authority to dictate what representation means. I wonder how you pulled that from the aether.

Allow me to quote your comment:

"Representation" is frankly a joke

That very much sounds like you're saying that representation isn't important. On what authority do you make that claim?

I don't think there exists a minority of humans with no empathy, outside of psychopaths.

Empathy doesn't equate to representation. You clearly do not understand what representation means, but that's unsurprising, considering your self-confessed position as part of a social majority. However, I would have assumed that you may be empathetic yourself, towards people who do not feel represented as often as you are, and perhaps understand that you don't get to dictate if representation is, or is not, a joke.

That's exactly what representation means. There's no one who looks like me in Seven Samurai, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy it.

And that's exactly why you don't understand what representation means. Thank you for illustrating my point.

So really you just want to make arguing on the internet easier for yourself despite the fact you're already convinced anyone who disagrees with you hates women. I must ask, if you've already drawn such a severe conclusion, then why even argue?

Considering the red text posted just above me, I think perhaps I may have been exactly on the ball.

There's no argument here - just bad faith comments being trotted out, under the guise of "lore". I want to see comments defending *why* the lore should be held sacred, and if that's worth alienating an audience that feel excluded (rightfully so) from the Flagship Faction. So far, I'm seeing comments from people declaring that the lore is sacred because "it's the lore", or that we shouldn't follow the whims of people who feel excluded, either because they allegedly don't exist, or because "they don't deserve to be represented".

I don't think any of the arguments are exactly convincing me that they're coming from a thoughtful or considerate place.

They are very masculine in concept and presentation. Taking that away is homogenisation to the current trend.
So it's not the fact they're men it's that they're men. Thanks, but women can still empathise with men.
Again, where did I claim authority? If I don't claim to be speaking on behalf of an authority then I'm not. When I say "Representation is a joke" the asterisk you should be adding in your head is *he's speaking on behalf of himself* not *he believes he is a god and passing down infallible judgements with the mandate of heaven*
I know what representation is, which is why I think it's a joke. I know it to be a farce because I know people are perfectly capable of enjoying things that they or people like them aren't in. That's because of empathy. The punchline is the handwringers so obsessed with empty moralising that they themselves find no enjoyment in anything.
You might be on something, but it's not the ball. As far as I saw he was saying men's clubs were okay, which I really can't see being a big problem outside of schmoozey corporate types.
Sticking with the fluff isn't a bad faith argument, many people enjoy the fluff and don't want to see it changed so that someone else might just theoretically enjoy it more. Almost any change to the fluff is met with resistance, ideologically motivated ones understandably more so.

 ingtaer wrote:

Blinkfox wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Blinkfox wrote:Wanting non-male SM solely because of a social problem you profess to exist makes you a pseudo-Marxist.

It does exist though. Can't ignore that point.

Animus wrote:Most people are just fine at empathising with others, those who can't do it or won't do it will not magically be corrected by female space marines.

But their arguments will be reduced to what I suspect it's always been - disliking women in their territory. They won't have lore to support their behaviour, won't have "but muh canon" - it will be reduced solely to "I just don't want women in my boys club".

And frankly, I don't think that's defensible.

I might get immense amounts of hate for that, but if a certain club (not the whole community, a single club) does not want women (or any other social group) among them, it's fine. Anyway, that's just a side note.
As for the upper quote, I still think that foregrounding a social problem (let's agree that it exists exactly as you describe it, for the sake of argument), making it a reason for a lore change and considering other values or facts less important is... weird. Are we going to see social problems everywhere and change things in an attempt to allegedly 'make people more happy'? (even if some of them are against it)
Also, I don't really like the somewhat utilitarian vibe behind all of this (I mean the entire pro-female SM part of discussion).

(Once again I would like to note that I am not mocking, joking, or being snide or cynical. English is not my first language and I might not possess the best rhetoric talent)

That kind of thing is really not okay, in any way shape or form. The hobby (and 40k) is for anyone who wishes to partake of it and we are strongly against any attempts to disbar people due to colour, gender, creed, sexuality or any other reason bar them espousing hate.

In the same vein would a woman's only wargaming club be ok?
Generally curious to know what people think.

We had a woman's only swimming from 8-9pm on Wednesdays at my old pool for example.