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.
RegularGuy wrote:Affirm female space marines or you are narrow minded (heretic), object to deeming failure to affirm space marine as heresy, you are a magical thinker, it is good right and salutary to stereotype and exclude anyone who does not affirm female space marines.
We're asking pretty simply questions, actually. Y'all just refuse to answer them.
Do you believe that a piece of fictional writing should be given more importance than the testimony and representation of real human beings? And if so, why?
Yah. It's a creative work and it's up to the authors to do with it as they please. An audience can take it or leave it, but Imo it's entirely up to the creators/owners of the work to change it ifthey want to or not.
RegularGuy wrote:Affirm female space marines or you are narrow minded (heretic), object to deeming failure to affirm space marine as heresy, you are a magical thinker, it is good right and salutary to stereotype and exclude anyone who does not affirm female space marines.
We're asking pretty simply questions, actually. Y'all just refuse to answer them.
Do you believe that a piece of fictional writing should be given more importance than the testimony and representation of real human beings? And if so, why?
Yah. It's a creative work
Creative works can, and should, be criticised.
Also, that's not what I'm saying in my point at all. My point isn't directed at GW - it's at RegularGuy: why does RegularGuy, or anyone else who is saying "but we can't change the lore to be inclusive!!" say that? Why can't the lore be changed to be inclusive? Why is that part of the lore some immutable, unchangeable aspect that needs to stay how it is, in spite of the myriad other changes GW have made? Why does the representation of another human being threaten their enjoyment of the hobby? Why does lore mean more to them than someone else's enjoyment?
Those aren't questions for GW. Those are questions for people here to answer and reflect on.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/01 16:36:44
RegularGuy wrote:Affirm female space marines or you are narrow minded (heretic), object to deeming failure to affirm space marine as heresy, you are a magical thinker, it is good right and salutary to stereotype and exclude anyone who does not affirm female space marines.
We're asking pretty simply questions, actually. Y'all just refuse to answer them.
Do you believe that a piece of fictional writing should be given more importance than the testimony and representation of real human beings? And if so, why?
Yah. It's a creative work
Creative works can, and should, be criticised.
Also, that's not what I'm saying in my point at all. My point isn't directed at GW - it's at RegularGuy: why does RegularGuy, or anyone else who is saying "but we can't change the lore to be inclusive!!" say that?
Why can't the lore be changed to be inclusive? Why is that part of the lore some immutable, unchangeable aspect that needs to stay how it is, in spite of the myriad other changes GW have made? Why does the representation of another human being threaten their enjoyment of the hobby? Why does lore mean more to them than someone else's enjoyment?
Those aren't questions for GW. Those are questions for people here to answer and reflect on.
Indeed, GW can and will do what they want.
But if they turned round tomorrow and said ‘female Marines exist now’ would that be a problem? If so, why?
RegularGuy wrote:Affirm female space marines or you are narrow minded (heretic), object to deeming failure to affirm space marine as heresy, you are a magical thinker, it is good right and salutary to stereotype and exclude anyone who does not affirm female space marines.
We're asking pretty simply questions, actually. Y'all just refuse to answer them.
Do you believe that a piece of fictional writing should be given more importance than the testimony and representation of real human beings? And if so, why?
Yah. It's a creative work
Creative works can, and should, be criticised.
Also, that's not what I'm saying in my point at all. My point isn't directed at GW - it's at RegularGuy: why does RegularGuy, or anyone else who is saying "but we can't change the lore to be inclusive!!" say that?
Why can't the lore be changed to be inclusive? Why is that part of the lore some immutable, unchangeable aspect that needs to stay how it is, in spite of the myriad other changes GW have made? Why does the representation of another human being threaten their enjoyment of the hobby? Why does lore mean more to them than someone else's enjoyment?
Those aren't questions for GW. Those are questions for people here to answer and reflect on.
The point is directed at GW whether you claim it to be or not, it's about their product and the actions they take regarding their product.
As for lore being immutable, when people have spent hundreds and thousands of dollars into a paradigm, even a fictional one, they've invested into a sort of shared understanding of that universe. If the universe starts changing in unpredictable ways there's a sort of upset to the "stability" of the investment, as it were. Imo it's basically only natural that change is resisted. So it's not "immutable", but it should be handled with care.
RegularGuy wrote:Affirm female space marines or you are narrow minded (heretic), object to deeming failure to affirm space marine as heresy, you are a magical thinker, it is good right and salutary to stereotype and exclude anyone who does not affirm female space marines.
We're asking pretty simply questions, actually. Y'all just refuse to answer them.
Do you believe that a piece of fictional writing should be given more importance than the testimony and representation of real human beings? And if so, why?
Yah. It's a creative work
Creative works can, and should, be criticised.
Also, that's not what I'm saying in my point at all. My point isn't directed at GW - it's at RegularGuy: why does RegularGuy, or anyone else who is saying "but we can't change the lore to be inclusive!!" say that?
Why can't the lore be changed to be inclusive? Why is that part of the lore some immutable, unchangeable aspect that needs to stay how it is, in spite of the myriad other changes GW have made? Why does the representation of another human being threaten their enjoyment of the hobby? Why does lore mean more to them than someone else's enjoyment?
Those aren't questions for GW. Those are questions for people here to answer and reflect on.
As for lore being immutable, when people have spent hundreds and thousands of dollars into a paradigm, even a fictional one, they've invested into a sort of shared understanding of that universe. If the universe starts changing in unpredictable ways there's a sort of upset to the "stability" of the investment, as it were. Imo it's basically only natural that change is resisted. So it's not "immutable", but it should be handled with care.
True, but would female marines be more disruptive than Primaris? If they were introduced at the same time as Primaris should that have been more controversial than Primaris already was?
Insectum7 wrote: For something like 40k, that's the perview of the people running the local FLGS community or the mods for the online spaces in which people meet. It has little to do with the existence of an all male faction.
Indirectly, but an all-male faction (and specifically, being the most iconic faction) can provide implicit endorsement of it being a "male" hobby, which can lead people to feel emboldened to exclude women.
Making the flagship faction visibly inclusive sends a message of inclusivity, and denies bigots ammunition and legitimacy from the very core product itself.
So here's my question then: Why are you asking for a lore change rather than a representation one? What if GW decided to use Space Marines less as the poster-child, and instead showed more Guard, Sisters, Eldar, Tau, xeno-tentacle-monsters? It seems like GW could be more inclusive without a lore change. (also why not female Custodes? missed opportunity there, imo.)
Insectum7 wrote: The point is directed at GW whether you claim it to be or not, it's about their product and the actions they take regarding their product.
No, the comment I'm making really isn't.
Sorry, but your comment would imply that there's no point discussing this topic at all.
As for lore being immutable, when people have spent hundreds and thousands of dollars into a paradigm, even a fictional one, they've invested into a sort of shared understanding of that universe. If the universe starts changing in unpredictable ways there's a sort of upset to the "stability" of the investment, as it were. Imo it's basically only natural that change is resisted. So it's not "immutable", but it should be handled with care.
So why is it women becoming Space Marines that is the breaking point for these people, considering that Primaris, Guilliman, and Cawl exist?
Clearly, change is tolerable for people, but when that change includes women, it suddenly isn't? I'd like an explanation.
Insectum7 wrote: For something like 40k, that's the perview of the people running the local FLGS community or the mods for the online spaces in which people meet. It has little to do with the existence of an all male faction.
Indirectly, but an all-male faction (and specifically, being the most iconic faction) can provide implicit endorsement of it being a "male" hobby, which can lead people to feel emboldened to exclude women.
Making the flagship faction visibly inclusive sends a message of inclusivity, and denies bigots ammunition and legitimacy from the very core product itself.
So here's my question then: Why are you asking for a lore change rather than a representation one? What if GW decided to use Space Marines less as the poster-child, and instead showed more Guard, Sisters, Eldar, Tau, xeno-tentacle-monsters? It seems like GW could be more inclusive without a lore change. (also why not female Custodes? missed opportunity there, imo.)
That'd also be good. If IG became the new posterchild, and they had a relatively even mix of men and women, that'd be great!
It's also less realistic than adding female Marines to the lore.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Insectum7 wrote: For something like 40k, that's the perview of the people running the local FLGS community or the mods for the online spaces in which people meet. It has little to do with the existence of an all male faction.
Indirectly, but an all-male faction (and specifically, being the most iconic faction) can provide implicit endorsement of it being a "male" hobby, which can lead people to feel emboldened to exclude women.
Making the flagship faction visibly inclusive sends a message of inclusivity, and denies bigots ammunition and legitimacy from the very core product itself.
So here's my question then: Why are you asking for a lore change rather than a representation one?
Because the lore is opposing that representation. Pretty simple, yes?
What if GW decided to use Space Marines less as the poster-child, and instead showed more Guard, Sisters, Eldar, Tau, xeno-tentacle-monsters?
Because I don't believe that'll happen in a million years. Space Marines are too damn iconic, like it or not. But as a what if? Sure. But also, what if women could be Space Marines?
It seems like GW could be more inclusive without a lore change.
Could be? Sure. But letting women become Space Marines is a damn sight easier for GW than it is to remarket and re-distribute resources across all of 40k, don't you think?
(also why not female Custodes? missed opportunity there, imo.)
When Custodes are as iconic as Space Marines, call me. But yes, I'd also like women Custodes, because the reasoning for them being mono-gender is equally flimsy, and a missed opportunity.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/01 17:12:18
RegularGuy wrote:Affirm female space marines or you are narrow minded (heretic), object to deeming failure to affirm space marine as heresy, you are a magical thinker, it is good right and salutary to stereotype and exclude anyone who does not affirm female space marines.
We're asking pretty simply questions, actually. Y'all just refuse to answer them.
Do you believe that a piece of fictional writing should be given more importance than the testimony and representation of real human beings? And if so, why?
Yah. It's a creative work
Creative works can, and should, be criticised.
Also, that's not what I'm saying in my point at all. My point isn't directed at GW - it's at RegularGuy: why does RegularGuy, or anyone else who is saying "but we can't change the lore to be inclusive!!" say that?
Why can't the lore be changed to be inclusive? Why is that part of the lore some immutable, unchangeable aspect that needs to stay how it is, in spite of the myriad other changes GW have made? Why does the representation of another human being threaten their enjoyment of the hobby? Why does lore mean more to them than someone else's enjoyment?
Those aren't questions for GW. Those are questions for people here to answer and reflect on.
As for lore being immutable, when people have spent hundreds and thousands of dollars into a paradigm, even a fictional one, they've invested into a sort of shared understanding of that universe. If the universe starts changing in unpredictable ways there's a sort of upset to the "stability" of the investment, as it were. Imo it's basically only natural that change is resisted. So it's not "immutable", but it should be handled with care.
True, but would female marines be more disruptive than Primaris? If they were introduced at the same time as Primaris should that have been more controversial than Primaris already was?
I honestly thought they were going to do female Primaris. Personally I'm WAAAY more willing to accept female Space Marines than Primaris (*spits). So from a personal standpoint female Space Marines is less controversial than Primaris.
CLEARLY that's not the case with some portion of the community though. And unfortunately I've become increasingly annoyed at the arguments of the pro-female Space Marine crowd. It's honestly made me roll back my stance a bit on the issue a bit.
Insectum7 wrote: I honestly thought they were going to do female Primaris.
Likewise - a massive missed opportunity.
So from a personal standpoint female Space Marines is less controversial than Primaris. CLEARLY that's not the case with some portion of the community though.
And that's what I'm asking questions about, yes?
And unfortunately I've become increasingly annoyed at the arguments of the pro-female Space Marine crowd. It's honestly made me roll back my stance a bit on the issue a bit.
Which arguments?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/01 17:20:19
Insectum7 wrote: For something like 40k, that's the perview of the people running the local FLGS community or the mods for the online spaces in which people meet. It has little to do with the existence of an all male faction.
Indirectly, but an all-male faction (and specifically, being the most iconic faction) can provide implicit endorsement of it being a "male" hobby, which can lead people to feel emboldened to exclude women.
Making the flagship faction visibly inclusive sends a message of inclusivity, and denies bigots ammunition and legitimacy from the very core product itself.
So here's my question then: Why are you asking for a lore change rather than a representation one?
Because the lore is opposing that representation. Pretty simple, yes?
Not simple, since Sisters exist. If an all-female faction can exist then an all male faction can exist. The issue becomes representation-of-faction in that case. Space Marines are the poster-child, but if they weren't . . . there would be less of an issue.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/01 17:23:03
Sisters don't have the same marketability or customisability that Space Marines have though.
If an all-female faction can exist then an all male faction can exist. The issue becomes representation-of-faction in that case. Space Marines are the poster-child, but if they weren't . . . there would be less of an issue.
Absolutely, but I think it's a hell of a lot easier right now to just... let women be Space Marines. (Also, Space Marines do offer unique features that neither Sisters or many other factions offer - namely, the actual Astartes aesthetic, the customisation of Space Marines, the playstyle on tabletop, or the legacy/background of what Space Marines are.)
Because really, why *shouldn't* women be allowed to be Space Marines? Is it *only* the lore?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/01 17:33:45
Space marines are a full third of the armies in the game and 50% of the model releases.
That's the only reason this matters. Nobody cares if Tempestus Scions exclude women (with the whole Schola Progenum thing). Or if Orks are effectively monogender. SMs being male only effectively makes the whole game into a boys club.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/01 17:45:24
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Just to be pedantic, Scions can be anything.
It's just the SoB that only takes girls from the Schola, the Commissariat, Scions, and Inquisition all take whatever.
pls no kill.
1. One argument goes something like "Gender identity isn't important to Space Marines anyways, so why not include women too?" Which is to say "Gender identity isn't important, but it's important enough that I want this change." It seems fundamentally flawed.
2. Another major issue I have is seeing demands for changing "creative works" to reform them in "their" image. This appears to be where the accusations of narcissism comes from. "I need to see myself represented." There's a certain (dare I say it) 'entitled petulance' about it. I find this issue to be particularly intriguing. On the one hand it's easy for me to understand the issues of representation, on the other hand . . . it's a fictional setting that has it's own rules, values, systems and traditions. The more you break/change the more you potentially erode the integrity of the setting overall. Perhaps more harmful, the more it reflects 'real life', the less of an exotic, escapist setting it becomes.
3. Another aspect is the 'apparent' responsibility of GW to somehow police the behavior of their players. "There has to be female Space Marines because some players are donkey-caves to group X". I can't really get on board with this one. I see it as roughly the same "enabling/emboldening" issue with people showing up with "full-redband-swastika-IG armies" because the "Imperium is fascist, yo". Or for that matter, the accusations of video game violence causing real-world violence. It's a fictional setting, and people should understand it/treat as such. If people can't do that, that's more a problem with the individual player or local community than the game/setting itself.
4. Another thrust of the matter is the 'requirement' that SMs change because the SMs are the poster-boys. ImoGW could just as easily make Space Marines less of the focus. Lots of people are pretty tired of them getting so much attention. Imo it would be better for the health of the lore and the overall game if less attention was paid to them. So I believe there are other solutions out there.
There's also a shadow of "If you don't want female SM you are a bigot" that looms over everything that's rather irritating.
Unfortunately I've got limited time atm, but that's what I can post for now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/01 18:08:25
I don't know if the SoB calls them SoB, or even members of the order, but their are absolutely male members of their faction. Priests, Echlesiarchs, The giant blade penitents, the Acolytes, etc.
Where is the representation for ... Christians in Space Marines?
This is the funniest gak someone has posted on this thread in days, my dude. Have an exalt.
Where's the representation for Christians in 40k? GOT EM no christian iconography ANYWHERE in this here game world!!!!!!
There may be absolutely nothing more emblematic of our current cultural moment than someone who I can only presume is at home sitting in a gigantic mountain of Black Templars and Sisters of Battle miniatures with Inquisitor allies asking "where's the CHRISTIAN representation then? what can a CHRISTIAN see to represent them in the 40k universe, what about them HUH???"
I I think the best representation for the Christian in 40k is the discussion between the emperor and the last priest on earth, who walks back into the burning church to die rather than join the imperium. I find it interesting that you feel that the trappings and forms of the imperium comprises a valid and appropriate representation for Christianity, where it is actually mockery and denigration. The imperium is the opposite of the authentic christian experience.
That said, I make no demand for GW or others to change their universe to be more inclusive or representative of authentic Christianity, it is no more necessary or appropriate than demanding affirmation of female space marines.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I don't know if the SoB calls them SoB, or even members of the order, but their are absolutely male members of their faction. Priests, Echlesiarchs, The giant blade penitents, the Acolytes, etc.
Soorrt of. There are no male Sisters of Battle. Any males are auxilliaries, iirc. So Faction, yes, but actual members of the SoB, no.
It's highly possible that Space Marines use female servitors, but I wouldn't call them Space Marines.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/01 18:12:01
RegularGuy wrote: The imperium is the opposite of the authentic christian experience.
*Looks at the Crusades, Witch Trials, Wars of Religion, corruption at the highest levels of most ruling bodies* Yeah, sure thing.
That said, I make no demand for GW or others to change their universe to be more inclusive or representative of authentic Christianity, it is no more necessary or appropriate than demanding affirmation of female space marines.
Mk but religion is a choice. You can stop being a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist at any time.
You kind of can't just stop being one sex or the other, the process takes years if you even get the chance to start it in the first place.
Literally every problem I see brought up could be solved by just making the might of the imperial guard the flagship faction. They are easily the most diverse and inclusive faction, and are actually still humans, unlike marines.
"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos
Insectum7 wrote:1. One argument goes something like "Gender identity isn't important to Space Marines anyways, so why not include women too?" Which is to say "Gender identity isn't important, but it's important enough that I want this change." It seems fundamentally flawed.
It's not saying gender identity isn't important full stop, it's "gender identity shouldn't be a factor in what Space Marines are, so they should be neutral". You mistake being all-male for being the norm. It's not.
2. Another major issue I have is seeing demands for changing "creative works" to reform them in "their" image. This appears to be where the accusations of narcissism comes from. "I need to see myself represented." There's a certain (dare I say it) 'entitled petulance' about it.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but are you someone who has ever felt unrepresented?
I may be wrong, but I find it difficult to take comments like that seriously when they come from people who don't actually know what it's like to not feel represented.
On the one hand it's easy for me to understand the issues of representation, on the other hand . . . it's a fictional setting that has it's own rules, values, systems and traditions.
Exactly - fictional rules. Why are real life people being held to the account of fictional rules? Why do fictional rules trump real life feelings and representation?
The more you break/change the more you potentially erode the integrity of the setting overall.
Potentially, but why are women Space Marines the catalyst? Should the setting not change at all from the moment of it's creation?
Perhaps more harmful, the more it reflects 'real life', the less of an exotic, escapist setting it becomes.
If you're not allowing people to feel represented, how can they find escapism?
More importantly, and I'm sure you don't mean it, but you're implying that "women aren't allowed here" is an escapist desire for people. Is that something we want to foster?
3. Another aspect is the 'apparent' responsibility of GW to somehow police the behavior of their players. "There has to be female Space Marines because some players are donkey-caves to group X". I can't really get on board with this one. I see it as roughly the same "enabling/emboldening" issue with people showing up with "full-redband-swastika-IG armies" because the "Imperium is fascist, yo". Or for that matter, the accusations of video game violence causing real-world violence. It's a fictional setting, and people should understand it/treat as such. If people can't do that, that's more a problem with the individual player or local community than the game/setting itself.
Sorry, but no. If I produce something, and a considerable amount of people taking my products are using them to enact or support harmful ideals, I need to question why they're using *my* product to do so, and if I oppose those ideals (which I would hope everyone here does), is it not my responsibility to deny them that?
Sorry, but I take a very active stance in opposing donkey-caves, and I believe that should be a responsibility of everyone. But, even morals aside, from a monetary standpoint, GW have a responsibility to do this too: making the environment more attractive to women and other marginalised groups has actually only increased profits for media companies that have done so. The whole "get woke, go broke" narrative is completely untrue, and appealing to a wider audience (and making them welcome) shows increased profits and markets.
4. Another thrust of the matter is the 'requirement' that SMs change because the SMs are the poster-boys. ImoGW could just as easily make Space Marines less of the focus.
And undo decades of market focus, cultural inertia, and simple memetic awareness? I don't believe so for a second. Not without investing an absolutely MASSIVE amount into new book lines, new media, new models, new codexes and subcodexes, new factions, and whole new branding.
Versus "anyone can be a Space Marine"? No chance.
There's also a shadow of "If you don't want female SM you are a bigot" that looms over everything that's rather irritating.
If people are seeing that, it's because they're choosing to see it there. They're more than welcome to outline in detail why their points about how "THE LORE WOULD BE RUINED WITH WOMEN SPACE MARINES" isn't sexist - I invite them to do so.
Unfortunately I've got limited time atm, but that's what I can post for now.
Appreciated.
RegularGuy wrote:I I think the best representation for the Christian in 40k is the discussion between the emperor and the last priest on earth, who walks back into the burning church to die rather than join the imperium.
Exactly - it's a single non-core book where an unmentioned faith (implied to be Christian, but is never explicitly named so) is wiped out. It being Christian is never the important part of the book, and as such, is most likely why it it never explicitly named. It's not exactly the same dominance that Space Marines have over 40k, is it?
Comparing the two is rooted in downplaying the position women occupy within the population, and their total absence in the flagship faction.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/01 18:29:56
RegularGuy wrote: The imperium is the opposite of the authentic christian experience.
*Looks at the Crusades, Witch Trials, Wars of Religion, corruption at the highest levels of most ruling bodies* Yeah, sure thing.
That said, I make no demand for GW or others to change their universe to be more inclusive or representative of authentic Christianity, it is no more necessary or appropriate than demanding affirmation of female space marines.
Mk but religion is a choice. You can stop being a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist at any time.
You kind of can't just stop being one sex or the other, the process takes years if you even get the chance to start it in the first place.
That really needs an ‘in the West’ qualifier tbf - not necessarily true everywhere in the world.
But as noted previously no real religion is explicitly represented in 40k so no individual religion is specifically excluded either.
Unlike gender where men are allowed in the popular club but not women. (And I agree, it’s the fact that it’s the ‘popular club’ which makes it the issue).
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:Literally every problem I see brought up could be solved by just making the might of the imperial guard the flagship faction. They are easily the most diverse and inclusive faction, and are actually still humans, unlike marines.
Again, perhaps - but how do you propose undoing the massive cultural weight that Space Marines have behind them? How long do you expect this would take? How many kits and models and sub-codexes and books and video games and Guardsmen on the front windows of GW stores do you need to make before they come close to the same dominance that Space Marines have occupied?
And then contrast that with "anyone can become a Space Marine", and a single sprue of Astartes women heads.
(And that's still ignoring why are Space Marines all male in the first place, and why should they be?)
That really needs an ‘in the West’ qualifier tbf - not necessarily true everywhere in the world.
But as noted previously no real religion is explicitly represented in 40k so no individual religion is specifically excluded either.
Unlike gender where men are allowed in the popular club but not women. (And I agree, it’s the fact that it’s the ‘popular club’ which makes it the issue).
I'm trying not to be annoyed at how you missed the point I was making.
When I say "religion is a choice", what I am saying is "religion is a social construct and nobody is biologically determined to be religion X. You might be forced into being religion X by the society you live in but that is sociological and not biological, unlike sex which is biological. Note I say SEX and not GENDER because Gender is also a social construct and changes as society does."
I wonder if all these saying that female marines is a travesty and against the “lore” and dragging gender politics into 40K, would they be willing to be vocal in their opposition if the issue was black Spacemarines?
Insectum7 wrote:1. One argument goes something like "Gender identity isn't important to Space Marines anyways, so why not include women too?" Which is to say "Gender identity isn't important, but it's important enough that I want this change." It seems fundamentally flawed.
It's not saying gender identity isn't important full stop, it's "gender identity shouldn't be a factor in what Space Marines are, so they should be neutral".
You mistake being all-male for being the norm. It's not.
2. Another major issue I have is seeing demands for changing "creative works" to reform them in "their" image. This appears to be where the accusations of narcissism comes from. "I need to see myself represented." There's a certain (dare I say it) 'entitled petulance' about it.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but are you someone who has ever felt unrepresented?
I may be wrong, but I find it difficult to take comments like that seriously when they come from people who don't actually know what it's like to not feel represented.
On the one hand it's easy for me to understand the issues of representation, on the other hand . . . it's a fictional setting that has it's own rules, values, systems and traditions.
Exactly - fictional rules. Why are real life people being held to the account of fictional rules? Why do fictional rules trump real life feelings and representation?
The more you break/change the more you potentially erode the integrity of the setting overall.
Potentially, but why are women Space Marines the catalyst? Should the setting not change at all from the moment of it's creation?
Perhaps more harmful, the more it reflects 'real life', the less of an exotic, escapist setting it becomes.
If you're not allowing people to feel represented, how can they find escapism?
More importantly, and I'm sure you don't mean it, but you're implying that "women aren't allowed here" is an escapist desire for people. Is that something we want to foster?
3. Another aspect is the 'apparent' responsibility of GW to somehow police the behavior of their players. "There has to be female Space Marines because some players are donkey-caves to group X". I can't really get on board with this one. I see it as roughly the same "enabling/emboldening" issue with people showing up with "full-redband-swastika-IG armies" because the "Imperium is fascist, yo". Or for that matter, the accusations of video game violence causing real-world violence. It's a fictional setting, and people should understand it/treat as such. If people can't do that, that's more a problem with the individual player or local community than the game/setting itself.
Sorry, but no. If I produce something, and a considerable amount of people taking my products are using them to enact or support harmful ideals, I need to question why they're using *my* product to do so, and if I oppose those ideals (which I would hope everyone here does), is it not my responsibility to deny them that?
Sorry, but I take a very active stance in opposing donkey-caves, and I believe that should be a responsibility of everyone.
But, even morals aside, from a monetary standpoint, GW have a responsibility to do this too: making the environment more attractive to women and other marginalised groups has actually only increased profits for media companies that have done so. The whole "get woke, go broke" narrative is completely untrue, and appealing to a wider audience (and making them welcome) shows increased profits and markets.
4. Another thrust of the matter is the 'requirement' that SMs change because the SMs are the poster-boys. ImoGW could just as easily make Space Marines less of the focus.
And undo decades of market focus, cultural inertia, and simple memetic awareness? I don't believe so for a second. Not without investing an absolutely MASSIVE amount into new book lines, new media, new models, new codexes and subcodexes, new factions, and whole new branding.
Versus "anyone can be a Space Marine"? No chance.
There's also a shadow of "If you don't want female SM you are a bigot" that looms over everything that's rather irritating.
If people are seeing that, it's because they're choosing to see it there. They're more than welcome to outline in detail why their points about how "THE LORE WOULD BE RUINED WITH WOMEN SPACE MARINES" isn't sexist - I invite them to do so.
Unfortunately I've got limited time atm, but that's what I can post for now.
Appreciated.
RegularGuy wrote:I I think the best representation for the Christian in 40k is the discussion between the emperor and the last priest on earth, who walks back into the burning church to die rather than join the imperium.
Exactly - it's a single non-core book where an unmentioned faith (implied to be Christian, but is never explicitly named so) is wiped out. It being Christian is never the important part of the book, and as such, is most likely why it it never explicitly named. It's not exactly the same dominance that Space Marines have over 40k, is it?
Comparing the two is rooted in downplaying the position women occupy within the population, and their total absence in the flagship faction.
I'd be interested to see responses from someone other than Smudge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: I wonder if all these saying that female marines is a travesty and against the “lore” and dragging gender politics into 40K, would they be willing to be vocal in their opposition if the issue was black Spacemarines?
Seems unrelated, since black Space Marines are allowed by the lore.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/01 19:00:45
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:Literally every problem I see brought up could be solved by just making the might of the imperial guard the flagship faction. They are easily the most diverse and inclusive faction, and are actually still humans, unlike marines.
Again, perhaps - but how do you propose undoing the massive cultural weight that Space Marines have behind them? How long do you expect this would take? How many kits and models and sub-codexes and books and video games and Guardsmen on the front windows of GW stores do you need to make before they come close to the same dominance that Space Marines have occupied?
And then contrast that with "anyone can become a Space Marine", and a single sprue of Astartes women heads.
(And that's still ignoring why are Space Marines all male in the first place, and why should they be?)
I mean, it's real easy to get people hooked on catachan and cadians through use of stuff like predator and starship troopers, some new lore that shows them actually being competent would also help.
Space marines are male because of weird biology stuff, but also because they're made in the image of the emperor and their primarchs. Plus i'm only against official GW stuff doing it, I don't want the 20 plus kits that would happen because of this. If you want to just hobby up some female go ahead, you'z still gonna get krumped by da orkz.
"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos
Insectum7 wrote: I'd be interested to see responses from someone other than Smudge.
Have you even looked through this thread mate? There's been a fair few people who have taken the same position as Smudge, myself included. The difference is that most of us cba repeating everything we've already said 20 times already for the 21st time because some new has jumped into the thread.
Gert wrote: Just to be pedantic, Scions can be anything.
It's just the SoB that only takes girls from the Schola, the Commissariat, Scions, and Inquisition all take whatever.
pls no kill.
Sorry, I'm not keeping track of which factions are canonically boys-only and which just happen to have all male models for no reason. I'll mentally add scions to the 'whoops, we forgot' list, I just had it in my brain that all the kiddos went to Warhammergwarts together and the little boy children got their tacticool space marine wannabe armor and the little girl children got their boobplates and bolters.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
