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.

Des702 wrote:I never said it would. I'm on the side of female Space Marines I just really hope they implement it well and don't make another caldor Drago or what Calgar used to be. And that goes for all new characters or all existing characters for the Warhammer storyline.

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you! Just putting forwards that I literally just want the same stuff between men and women.

Argive wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The answer is 'Because they're not the same thing'. Hail Caesar is based in a historical setting, while 40K is space fantasy. For a historical game to accurately represent women, they would include women wherever it was historically appropriate. A fantasy game however doesn't need to adhere to historical record, it can be whatever the creator wants it to be... but if the creator chooses to use that power to exclude a portion of their potential customer base, they're just leaving money on the table.

Sure, fiction is allowed to be reflective of history. But there is no particularly good reason for it to do so in the particular case under discussion, and it makes no sense for it to do so in the wider context of the rest of the setting.

Space Marines are a fantasy representation of a genetically modified super-soldier, created with made up science in a made up setting. There is absolutely no sensible reason for this fantasy to be limited purely to men, just because it was first created 30 years ago when nobody bothered to consider if it might be worth marketing to women at some point.

That is a false equivalency of my point and you know it.
They are both war games.
They are not the same wargame, but they are both wargames involving miniatures and dice.
40k is a war game.
They are for all intents and purposes the same thing.
Its not apples and oranges. Its comparing golden delicious apples and granny smiths apples.
The only difference seem to be that one is set in the future and is vastly popular and one one is set in the past and is not so popular. That's it. But apparently because its in the future creators have to adhere to certain rules? That's crazy...

... yes. Like, literally, yes, that's exactly it.

If 40k's "lore" was reflective of anything that wasn't pulled out of the writer's ass, you could argue that it does have certain things to take into account. But 40k is a made up setting, and any restrictions or prohibitions or rules are also made up, pulled out of a writer's ass, or however you want to describe it.

Them both being war games is entirely irrelevant, because not all war games depict the same wars - indeed, some of these wars are entirely fictional. I'm genuinely astounded that you think that's enough to call them the same thing.

You admit creators can make whatever they want, but in the very same post say that unless there is a good reason they need to change what they create?

Why shouldn't they be more representative? What possible reason is there to keep Space Marines all male?

Reasons of biology/historical relevance are dismissed because it doesn't fit the inclusion narrative "and doesn't have to be that way".

They're goddamn made up fictional super soldiers with made up fictional super soldier serum that helps them grow their made up fictional organs so they can go off and wear made up fictional power armour to fight made up fictional aliens.

Reasons of biology and historical relevance have no place here, because (repeat after me, kids!) it's all a made up fictional setting.

But it just is that way.

No, it's not. You act like the lore spontaneously exploded into existence, and therefore, immutably is.
It's not. The lore exists because some writer gakked out a half-assed explanation why his company didn't sell women Space Marines. It's all made up, it's all fictional, and therefore has no weight under it's own merit. If you want to defend the lore, you've got to bring more to the table than "because it is".

Justify to me why Space Marines need to be male. Don't use the lore to do it, use literally anything else. And then compare that reason to "because women literally exist, and representation is important" as to why there should be women Astartes.

I don't think 40k creators did this to gate keep women out. I think they did this in order to maximise profits by selling plastic toy super soldier to young lads who are much more inclined towards toy soldiers and like the fantasy of fighting aliens. This has been discussed ad nauseum.. .

To maximise profits decades ago, yes. But it's a whole new *millenium* now, and considering how popular more diverse settings are with audiences beyond your standard "young lads", and how we're seeing plenty of women inclined towards toy soldiers and the fantasy of fighting (almost like they always could have been inclined, but felt pushed away by horribly regressive marketing practices!!), acting like there's no way that women would be interested in women Space Marines because they're *gasp!*, women, maybe that reason they pulled that exclusionary lore out of their ass isn't valid any more.

Just a thought.

I think the proposed change is very disingenuous and unrealistic.
Lets say they change the "13 words of lore" and make an upgrade sprue "just one sprue is all we want!"

And GW NEVER address this again. All publications & things continue as they are. Will people be happy ? How long will this status quo exist? Will it not be a case of "not enough representation" again within a year?

Yes. Like, literally, just getting rid of those 13 words, adding a women's head sprue, and then, whenever Space Marines happen to be featured in something*, the newly canonised women also appear in that material, we're all fine.

*And that's not me calling for kits to be updated, or books to be rewritten. Just when new kits are made, and when new books are written, and when there's a new Space Marine video game or animation or other kind of 4ok media - that they feature the women that they just made canon.

That's all.

Will we not need a never ending stream of updated SM units and character models going through arbitrary gender swaps and narrative focusing even more on SM in order to kill off existing characters, and replace them with someone more palatable?

No. All that's needed is *when* new stuff comes out, and it will, that it follows the trend. That's not anyone asking for new updated units or a new focus on SM. Only that when SM eventually do get new stuff, and they invariably will, at some unforeseen point, that women appear in the lineup.

We know how this ends.

No, you've made a strawman to attack. Everyone else knows this.

And all that to satisfy 4 people who want to play girl space marines? (which they can already do..)

It's far more than four - but thanks for being disingenuous!

The objective with changing SM does not appear to be inclusivity.
If it was, people would want to focus on Guard and SOB and Eldar and TAU and bring them to prominence and overshadow SM with new models featuring females.
Its a noble goal, and pretty much everyone seems in favour and its also good for the overall setting and game.

You've clearly had your ears plugged and eyes plucked, because you'd know why focusing on factions with existing inclusivity isn't enough.

But, in case you need the reminder, I'll go through why:
1. There is no good reason for Space Marines to be all male in the first place. The lore is made up, and doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny that you, or anyone else here, can defend against. You seem to be under the impression that Space Marines should be all male by default. This is not true - factions should be gender-neutral by default, and you should be explaining why a faction should be only one gender.

2. Space Marines are uniquely customisable. No other faction has quite as many resources open to it, from models to background, that Space Marines do to accommodate for player individuality and freedom. This is something that Sisters, Guardsmen, Eldar and Tau simply do not have by their own design as factions, unless you either drastically change their faction design, or in the case of the Guard, pump obscene amounts of money into.

3. Representation requires visibility. Representing women in a minor faction doesn't do that.

4. The effort it would take to elevate all those other factions to anywhere near the level of pop culture celebrity that Space Marines possess would be astronomically expensive, time consuming, and most importantly, devalues the marketing power of the Space Marine. GW know the power of marketing and iconography, and Space Marines happen to be excellent marketing vehicles (largely because of point 2). By elevating other factions, GW blows massive amounts of money on needing to create models, lore, subcodexes, Horus-Heresy-length novel series, artwork, promotional material, external media sources, rebranding and redesigning their flagship game and stripping themselves of one of their most iconic pieces of merchandise...

... when they could have changed 13 words of outdated lore and added a new sprue.

It's simply not economical to do.

But: "Destroy notion of boy only SM because some socially awkward people looks at me funny when I make girl space marines and not follow lore" is not a worthy goal IMO.
Sorry.

I mean, by all means, call yourself socially awkward, but when those social awkward people do far more than "look at me funny" (and you're delusional if you think that's all it is), then there's a bit of a problem going on.

You know that's a ridiculously reductive take - I've explained repeatedly what the reason for changing the lore is, and the importance of doing so with Space Marines. If you're unable to process that, you really ought to step away. It's not even worth humouring these increasingly outlandish and misrepresentative posts any more..

Yeah, they are both TTWG. That's where the similarities end. They play by different rules when it comes to telling a story with the games/minis. 40k is a Scifi TTWG set in the far future where the only thing that matters to the Imperium is that you are human and you serve the Emperor. It's fantasy and doesn't have to abide by real-world history because it is made up. HC is a historical wargame that abides by real-world history which covers the Bronze Age to the War of the Roses. There were women warriors in the "barbaric cultures" i.e. Celts but because of real-world social attitudes at the time women were to be homemakers and child-bearers.
I know the History channel ain't to strong on the actual history front but the fact that you can't tell the difference between history and fantasy worries me a bit.


Correct, GW did do away with female SM nearly 30 years ago, in which time social attitudes have changed quite a bit, and the culture around 40k has become "gate-keepy" because of certain groups of fans. So in the modern-day both to maximise profits and try to present itself as a modern progressive company that doesn't believe in outdated social attitudes GW should really be making its flagship product (40k SM) more inclusive to the other 50% of the human population because there isn't a chance in hell that anything else is going to come along and knock the most marketable product they have off its perch.


Nobody is happy forever. But to answer the question properly, SM are going to get neverending support anyway why not just put the option for female models in there? Throw another bunch of SM characters in and the SM players will be happy because more toys. The biggest issue is that SM have grown to the point where any more release, female or otherwise, just reinforces their position as an extremely bloated faction that takes up 50% of the game that needs half its model line axed as soon as possible.
Nobody is saying "Make Calgar a woman", that's a disingenuous point and you know it.
Also, "We know how this ends"? WT does that even mean?
It's not just so players can model them, TBH for me it's about getting rid of the disgusting part of the fanbase that sends death threats to hobbyists who make female SM now.


I mean it straight up is inclusivity and in case you can't read, the number of times people in this thread have said "do the other factions first for the love of God please no more SM", is in the low hundreds at this point.
If you can think of a way to make women hobbyists feel safer in the 40k community be my guest.

So this all "Seems" to boil down to two ways of thinking it, a true dichotomy.

One group, the "Social justice crowd", because again lets no mince words this is exactly the people that are pushing this excuses aside.

Vs

The ones who wish the setting and background to be kept free from the politicisation of the setting for the "Activists" and prevent it from being used as yet another "platform" as other franchises have been.

Thing is if we simply just say "no" to the "Activists" in the same manner in which they keep pushing what then? they have no moral authority, we already know its not about the inclusivity, that's a front, the "Motte" so to speak, the actual aim is control of the platform in order to push whatever the flavour of the month is to the "activist", the "Bailey" that is so obvious.

Thing is, we know this, they know we know this, we know they know that we know they know this and they know we know they know this too, so why 25 pages of games and putting up a front, what ultimately is the point, this wont be agreed upon, no consensus will be achieved, the "gatekeepers" as they have been called will continue to push the "social justice" people back and the "social justice" people will continue trying to gain control of the "platform" until either they are barred or succeed.

Again this is nothing to do with "representation" or "inclusivity" "morality" "fairness" etc. we all know this, we reject that framing out of hand entirely for the falsehood it is and doubly so because it is so obvious to anyone who even slightly pays attention to these things, can we not just be honest in our intentions and if so the honest interpretation is as simple as this.

"Social justice" group: we want to control the setting and universe so we can use it as a platform for our activism as we believe that power is the ultimate form of political expression, if we do not have the power, we are duty bound to force change by any means necessary in order to gain said power.

Non "social justice group": We do not agree with the above as we do not wish the thing we like to be used as a political platform, this is because we see such things happening very often in other fandoms and franchises, we do not agree with your framing or reasons for doing so as we have experienced at length the ramifications of said actions and do not wish the same for this particular franchise, if you do not like this then please respect our wishes and leave the status quo alone.

I know these points will be ignored, I know they will be deliberately miscontsrued and mis represented by the ideologically possessed but as I said years ago on this very forum when I warned that this exact thing was coming as it did for other franchises, I would be remiss if I did not at least try.

 Formosa wrote:
So this all "Seems" to boil down to two ways of thinking it, a true dichotomy.

One group, the "Social justice crowd", because again lets no mince words this is exactly the people that are pushing this excuses aside.

Vs

The ones who wish the setting and background to be kept free from the politicisation of the setting for the "Activists" and prevent it from being used as yet another "platform" as other franchises have been.

Oh, so you're not even trying to hide the bias?

We can do this one of two ways: we apply your "not mincing words" to both, and we go for "SJWs versus the bigots", or we can be "truthful" about this, something more like:

"Those who want representation for real world people for their enjoyment" versus "those who think having women in media is somehow political".
Or perhaps "those who know the lore is made up, and isn't an excuse for excluding real people" versus "those who value made up words over those real people"

I can do this all day. Point is, you're very clearly being very intellectually dishonest in your framing, and I'm highlighting that.

Thing is if we simply just say "no" to the "Activists" in the same manner in which they keep pushing what then?

Then I ask why? What possible reasons do you have?

I've asked this of y'all for a while, and all I seem to have gotten is misrepresentations, complete misunderstandings (either out of malice or ignorance), and avoidance of the question.

You have every right to say "no", but everyone can see the flimsiness when you do.

they have no moral authority, we already know its not about the inclusivity, that's a front, the "Motte" so to speak, the actual aim is control of the platform in order to push whatever the flavour of the month is to the "activist", the "Bailey" that is so obvious.

You mean it's the only way your mind can possibly understand the situation, so you make up motives and conspiracies to lend yourself a glimmer of legitimacy in your point?

"We already know" - no, you just refuse to accept it. Your lack of moral awareness is your problem, not mine.

Thing is, we know this, they know we know this, we know they know that we know they know this and they know we know they know this too, so why 25 pages of games and putting up a front, what ultimately is the point, this wont be agreed upon, no consensus will be achieved, the "gatekeepers" as they have been called will continue to push the "social justice" people back and the "social justice" people will continue trying to gain control of the "platform" until either they are barred or succeed.

Again, carry on with the conspiracies, bud. I'm sure it's definitely you who's pulled back the wool on this great SJW conspiracy and there's no other possible explanation.

Come on folks, the jig's up, our big SJW conspiracy has been called out! It was fun while it lasted, but nope, I guess it was all a big conspiracy to "gain control" with some nebulous motives?

Again this is nothing to do with "representation" or "inclusivity" "morality" "fairness" etc.

U sure about that hun?

we all know this

Do we?

we reject that framing out of hand entirely for the falsehood it is and doubly so because it is so obvious to anyone who even slightly pays attention to these things, can we not just be honest in our intentions and if so the honest interpretation is as simple as this.

We are being honest. Sorry if you can't understand how people just want representation, but that's honestly not my problem.

"Social justice" group: we want to control the setting and universe so we can use it as a platform for our activism as we believe that power is the ultimate form of political expression, if we do not have the power, we are duty bound to force change by any means necessary in order to gain said power.

Alternatively: "we'd love if everyone felt welcome in this hobby and setting, and having a visibly inclusive faction at the forefront would be great. And if we can get rid of some of the ammunition that people use to exclude people implicitly, that would be great too!"

But I admit, yours has this nice sense of moral panic and framing yourself as the brave plucky underdogs fighting against this insidious regime. Shame it's just as fictional as the reasons women can't be Space Marines.

Non "social justice group": We do not agree with the above as we do not wish the thing we like to be used as a political platform, this is because we see such things happening very often in other fandoms and franchises, we do not agree with your framing or reasons for doing so as we have experienced at length the ramifications of said actions and do not wish the same for this particular franchise, if you do not like this then please respect our wishes and leave the status quo alone.

Alternatively: "we care more about made up words than the real people we (sometimes) claim to be inclusive to, and if you don't worship the lore, you don't belong in this hobby because you're clearly some SJW agent sent to destroy the hobby entirely".

I repeat again, as you say "political platform" - women's existence isn't political. I don't know why you seem to think that having women in your fictional army is somehow political.

I'd also like to say that, just on record, "leaving the status quo alone" is a political stance - but I'm sure you're aware of that.

I know these points will be ignored

Ignored? No. Treated with contempt? Certainly.

I know they will be deliberately miscontsrued and mis represented by the ideologically possessed

It's be such an awful thing if that were to happen, wouldn't it?

Shame that you have experience in deliberately misrepresenting and misconstruing points, but I've tried as best I can to learn from you!

but as I said years ago on this very forum when I warned that this exact thing was coming as it did for other franchises, I would be remiss if I did not at least try.

Finished with your little soapbox, are we? Finished painting yourself as a martyr against these hordes of seething SJWs coming to loot and pillage your fictional universes? I hope you got as much of a laugh out of it as I did.

I'd just like to re-iterate my question: why is having women Space Marines bad? Why are women seen as "political"? Why do Space Marines have to be men? Why is lore more valuable than real life people? And who let the dogs out?

40k has always been political you've either just ignored it or don't know it's there. It makes very clear that the state humanity lives in in-universe is a horrible and pathetic existence where they have no control over their lives or freedom. The right-wing fantasy of a God-fearing fascist dictatorship is openly ridiculed in every possible way but modern 40k is absolutely missing so much of that it hurts. Only with the perspective of Guilliman and his still pretty fascist but slightly less fascist ideals has the Imperium been properly portrayed as awful.
Also, social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political, and social rights and opportunities. If there are people actively being excluded from enjoying a hobby then that is unacceptable. It's not some power trip, it's a legitimate concern that when certain groups of people get involved in the hobby they are shunned/harrassed/threatened.


See above.


If you see people wanting to make 40k more inclusive of others at the expense of 13 words of lore from roughly 20 years ago, then I am truly sorry for you. The funniest part is that you think you control 40k because you want it to stay the same forever. You never controlled it in the first place and you never will.


Lmao, you make it sound like people who want female SM are going to break into your house, tie you to a chair and beat you with baseball bats because you disagree with them. Get out of here with your fake moral superiority and come back when women and minorities can enjoy the hobby without getting death threats.


God, you want to be oppressed so hard, don't you?
Does it make it easier to spew nonsense like this if you think the big bad SJW's are coming to get you? Some people just like to hobby without getting doxxed and sent death threats because they put some SoB heads on some Primaris.

The ones who wish the setting and background to be kept free from the politicisation of the setting

What part of a setting that focuses entirely on a xenophobic, totalitarian regime is apolitical to you? Having marines be only male is already a political statement.

 Gert wrote:
Does it make it easier to spew nonsense like this if you think the big bad SJW's are coming to get you? Some people just like to hobby without getting doxxed and sent death threats because they put some SoB heads on some Primaris.

It's the only way that they can make their hill defensible: act like they're the plucky underdogs fighting some kind of violent aggressive conspiracy, instead of having to come into contact with the realisation that they're actively valuing made up fictions over including real women.

It's all about narratives of morality to them, except instead of "hey, here's tangible proof that women aren't represented fairly in the hobby, can we do something practical about that?", it's "WE ALL KNOW THAT THEY'RE SECRETLY TRYING TO CONTROL EVERYTHING".
About as subtle as a brick really, but I don't suppose subtlety builds such impressive gatehouses.

 Formosa wrote:
So this all "Seems" to boil down to two ways of thinking it, a true dichotomy.

One group, the "Social justice crowd", because again lets no mince words this is exactly the people that are pushing this excuses aside.

Vs

The ones who wish the setting and background to be kept free from the politicisation of the setting for the "Activists" and prevent it from being used as yet another "platform" as other franchises have been.

Thing is if we simply just say "no" to the "Activists" in the same manner in which they keep pushing what then? they have no moral authority, we already know its not about the inclusivity, that's a front, the "Motte" so to speak, the actual aim is control of the platform in order to push whatever the flavour of the month is to the "activist", the "Bailey" that is so obvious.

Thing is, we know this, they know we know this, we know they know that we know they know this and they know we know they know this too, so why 25 pages of games and putting up a front, what ultimately is the point, this wont be agreed upon, no consensus will be achieved, the "gatekeepers" as they have been called will continue to push the "social justice" people back and the "social justice" people will continue trying to gain control of the "platform" until either they are barred or succeed.

Again this is nothing to do with "representation" or "inclusivity" "morality" "fairness" etc. we all know this, we reject that framing out of hand entirely for the falsehood it is and doubly so because it is so obvious to anyone who even slightly pays attention to these things, can we not just be honest in our intentions and if so the honest interpretation is as simple as this.

"Social justice" group: we want to control the setting and universe so we can use it as a platform for our activism as we believe that power is the ultimate form of political expression, if we do not have the power, we are duty bound to force change by any means necessary in order to gain said power.

Non "social justice group": We do not agree with the above as we do not wish the thing we like to be used as a political platform, this is because we see such things happening very often in other fandoms and franchises, we do not agree with your framing or reasons for doing so as we have experienced at length the ramifications of said actions and do not wish the same for this particular franchise, if you do not like this then please respect our wishes and leave the status quo alone.

I know these points will be ignored, I know they will be deliberately miscontsrued and mis represented by the ideologically possessed but as I said years ago on this very forum when I warned that this exact thing was coming as it did for other franchises, I would be remiss if I did not at least try.

It really isn't and doesn't.

Most of the posters pro including the female half of the in universe setting are actually being pragmatic.

The current lore could be taken as being another absurd facet of the Imperium and its pseudo scientific thinking. But that isn't an accurate representation.
I can see a real need to update the lore to include all genders in the soup of homogenized disfigured giants in power armour - That would be absolutely on point for the narrative that 40k has established.

PS the Horus Heresy can move to 'legends status'.

Cronch wrote:
Having marines be only male is already a political statement.

Yeah, I've made this point and I'm not seeing it addressed anywhere.

For all this talk of "hamfisting" and "forcing" things in the lore, are we forgetting that by default, things should be gender neutral, because... well, there's more than just men IRL? Isn't it more artificial and "hamfisting" to consciously go out of your way to say "hey, only men allowed here" - more, dare I say, political? Because exclusion is definitely more political than inclusion.

 Gert wrote:

Spoiler:

 Formosa wrote:
So this all "Seems" to boil down to two ways of thinking it, a true dichotomy.

One group, the "Social justice crowd", because again lets no mince words this is exactly the people that are pushing this excuses aside.

Vs

The ones who wish the setting and background to be kept free from the politicisation of the setting for the "Activists" and prevent it from being used as yet another "platform" as other franchises have been.

40k has always been political you've either just ignored it or don't know it's there. It makes very clear that the state humanity lives in in-universe is a horrible and pathetic existence where they have no control over their lives or freedom. The right-wing fantasy of a God-fearing fascist dictatorship is openly ridiculed in every possible way but modern 40k is absolutely missing so much of that it hurts. Only with the perspective of Guilliman and his still pretty fascist but slightly less fascist ideals has the Imperium been properly portrayed as awful.
Also, social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political, and social rights and opportunities. If there are people actively being excluded from enjoying a hobby then that is unacceptable. It's not some power trip, it's a legitimate concern that when certain groups of people get involved in the hobby they are shunned/harrassed/threatened.

Spoiler:

Thing is if we simply just say "no" to the "Activists" in the same manner in which they keep pushing what then? they have no moral authority, we already know its not about the inclusivity, that's a front, the "Motte" so to speak, the actual aim is control of the platform in order to push whatever the flavour of the month is to the "activist", the "Bailey" that is so obvious.

See above.

Spoiler:

Thing is, we know this, they know we know this, we know they know that we know they know this and they know we know they know this too, so why 25 pages of games and putting up a front, what ultimately is the point, this wont be agreed upon, no consensus will be achieved, the "gatekeepers" as they have been called will continue to push the "social justice" people back and the "social justice" people will continue trying to gain control of the "platform" until either they are barred or succeed.

If you see people wanting to make 40k more inclusive of others at the expense of 13 words of lore from roughly 20 years ago, then I am truly sorry for you. The funniest part is that you think you control 40k because you want it to stay the same forever. You never controlled it in the first place and you never will.

Spoiler:

Again this is nothing to do with "representation" or "inclusivity" "morality" "fairness" etc. we all know this, we reject that framing out of hand entirely for the falsehood it is and doubly so because it is so obvious to anyone who even slightly pays attention to these things, can we not just be honest in our intentions and if so the honest interpretation is as simple as this.

"Social justice" group: we want to control the setting and universe so we can use it as a platform for our activism as we believe that power is the ultimate form of political expression, if we do not have the power, we are duty bound to force change by any means necessary in order to gain said power.

Non "social justice group": We do not agree with the above as we do not wish the thing we like to be used as a political platform, this is because we see such things happening very often in other fandoms and franchises, we do not agree with your framing or reasons for doing so as we have experienced at length the ramifications of said actions and do not wish the same for this particular franchise, if you do not like this then please respect our wishes and leave the status quo alone.

Lmao, you make it sound like people who want female SM are going to break into your house, tie you to a chair and beat you with baseball bats because you disagree with them. Get out of here with your fake moral superiority and come back when women and minorities can enjoy the hobby without getting death threats.

Spoiler:

I know these points will be ignored, I know they will be deliberately miscontsrued and mis represented by the ideologically possessed but as I said years ago on this very forum when I warned that this exact thing was coming as it did for other franchises, I would be remiss if I did not at least try.

God, you want to be oppressed so hard, don't you?
Does it make it easier to spew nonsense like this if you think the big bad SJW's are coming to get you? Some people just like to hobby without getting doxxed and sent death threats because they put some SoB heads on some Primaris.

You just utterly proved my point Gert and didn't even realize it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cronch wrote:

The ones who wish the setting and background to be kept free from the politicisation of the setting

What part of a setting that focuses entirely on a xenophobic, totalitarian regime is apolitical to you? Having marines be only male is already a political statement.

Another one that proves my point entirely.

What exactly is the nefarious purpose of adding representation?

Like, what’s sinister about that? You seem to take it for granted that exclusively male Marines are good-why is that?

It really isn't and doesn't.

Most of the posters pro including the female half of the in universe setting are actually being pragmatic.

The current lore could be taken as being another absurd facet of the Imperium and its pseudo scientific thinking. But that isn't an accurate representation.
I can see a real need to update the lore to include all genders in the soup of homogenized disfigured giants in power armour - That would be absolutely on point for the narrative that 40k has established.

PS the Horus Heresy can move to 'legends status'

As I said before this has zero to do with representation, inclusivity, woman or any such thing, it's about control and power, I reject the false narrative and framing that it has anything to do with the representation.

I see no need to make female marines because activists have chosen this vector to try to control a increasingly popular "platform" as they see it, the answer is no, I know no amount of rationalising will matter, no appeal to lore, common sense or anything will matter because of the "by any means necessary" mentality the activist has, they simply do not care, so why should I care about their arguments in favour of change?

Control of what? Power for what purpose?

What do I gain from women Marines-other than a more inclusive and diverse hobby?

 Formosa wrote:

As I said before this has zero to do with representation, inclusivity, woman or any such thing, it's about control and power, I reject the false narrative and framing that it has anything to do with the representation.

Then kindly go and reject it somewhere else, because this thread is about representation and inclusivity.



Edit - That goes for both 'sides' of the argument here. Let's keep it on topic, folks.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What do I gain from women Marines-other than a more inclusive and diverse hobby?

Ooh, more cool heads for converting other models!

So I think the more reasonable among us can agree that lore is not a reason to exclude female representation, if only because GW doesn't respect its own lore.

Maybe if they had a long and consistent trail of lore that they didn't retcon every edition or two (usually for the benefit of Space Marines, ironically) there would be a point. But we don't and GW has demonstrated that they're more than willing to disregard their own fluff if it benefits them (usually to sell more models).

The only legitimate issue I'm seeing that people have brought up is that including females among the astartes would require GW to pour more time and energy into Space Marines who already make up half the hobby and have more than enough design space allotted to them as is. Either that or maybe they take the effort of the next primaris lieutenant and put it into a female head sprue, but we all know that's crazy talk.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Cronch wrote:
Having marines be only male is already a political statement.

Yeah, I've made this point and I'm not seeing it addressed anywhere.

Since Rogue Trader and the original Chapter Approved article were both written by Rick Priestly, I'll let him answer your question: "I don’t think any of us thought about what we doing in quite such depth at the time. Great read though and it made me smile. One aspect of characterization that I feel is often missed in Warhammer, is that many of the invented personalities and cultures have a deliberately self-deceiving quality. What they are and what they believe themselves to be are in conflict – and ultimately that gives you the idea of Troll Slayers, which is uniquely and almost definitively one of Richard Halliwell’s finest concepts. I don’t think we took ourselves all that seriously or felt the need to do so though. The 40K universe was certainly conceived in the same spirit. It always amused me that the GW Mail Order ‘Trolls’ as we (starting with me) had always styled ourselves insisted as being rebranded ‘Space Marines’. Why anyone would want to be associated with semi-lobotomized, hypnotically indoctrinated slave-soldiers in thrall to an uncaring (and possibly non-existent) god I couldn’t imagine. But times change, don’t they."

What I find odd about this discussion is that, since this is the 40k background forum, the background is dismissed as made up and irrelevent, "pulled from some author's ass". So works of fiction or art have no intrinsic value? They are not unique creations worthy of preservation?



So you have what seems to be a passing couple looking in the window, a woman at the front, with some Warcry as the main display. What exactly puts anyone off going into the shop? Nothing; well, not if they like that sort of thing, plenty of people do think warhammer is a little but gak don't they and I suppose natural disinclination would stop them from going in, but anyone who's curious? Welcome potential customer, do you need any glue??

But do you think a random person walking by, knowing nothing of warhammer, knows anything about any of the background? Doesn't seem likely, I know I didn't when I started in the hobby and having picked up the basics during intro games with a staffer, I got by with basic rules knowledge for a year or more, didn't even get into the background at all for several years. At the time, being only eight, I knew I wanted to get into the hobby but which game system? My mother wanted me to pick Warhammer Fantasy Battle because Bretonnians and fantasy in general made sense to her, I guess she just really liked the WFB 5th Edition box art? *shrug*

Why I picked 40k though, even though I really kinda wanted to pick WFB just because that's what my Mum wanted, were two specific miniatures. The Van Saar Heavy Plasma Gun (yes, the gun, not the man ) and the Ultramarines Dreadnought, that ugly, square lump was the most awesome thing I had ever seen. I collected space marines because they had Dreadnoughts and thanks to the Great Lead Sale, they were cheap, two five man combat squads saw me all the way through 2nd Edition and on into 3rd until far more important things than 40k caused me to withdraw from regular gaming. For all of that time my Mum thought space marines were robots. That took me aback and I pointed out that they had human heads (she'd even showed me how to mix paint, to paint the face of the sergeant from the 2nd Ed boxed set because I didn't have any specific flesh colours), so why would she think they were robots!? She just shrugged, "They look like robots." At least my Mum supported my interest in the hobby, and she was always good to slip me twenty quid for a box of this or that; my Dad once literally made me cry (in the GW shop no less!) because I was planning to buy Codex Chaos, (with my own saved up money) and he thought £15 was groxdung. Although after he realised what a nob he'd been he relented and he didn't put me off getting the book so, I guess it worked out in the end). My Nan was a totally different prospect though. I once brought some Tyranids with me to paint whilst spending an afternoon with her, "Why are you painting them all the same colour?" "Because they're an army" "Ohh, what a load of rubbish." And my uncle was baffled by warhammer, and my much younger cousin too, "I just don't get it." (I was playing Chaos Gate, not even the miniature game), I said, "It's a game, you try and kill the enemy, what's to get?" He just didn't understand warhammer, reckoned I'd grow out of it and one day switch to football. "But I think football's crap?" "You'll see, one day..."

Of all the people I've ever met, I would say about 10% even know warhammer exists, and of those 10% about half had collected a few minitures years before and then just forgot about it and moved on and the rest thought it was hilariously gak and didn't understand how anyone could like it.

Are women put off 40k because space marines are all male? I don't see how and the arguments set forth in this thread claiming they are seem unhinged and verging on the sort of creepy, cringey neckbeard-i-ness that is apparently rife within the community. As a woman poster on twitter put it, in response to a tweet not unlike many I've read on this thread: "Way to gatekeep. Not everyone wants to be miserable and obsessed with politics. You’re the type of person that pushed me away from this game for so long." Are there any women in this thread saying that they are put off getting into 40k because space marines are all male?

The question I ask myself is this: if female space marines are included for the purposes of adding representation for women into the space marine faction, what do women get out of it? The purpose of representation is to provide power and influence, important for anyone whom, from a lack of representation is denied agency over their own life within society. As a vulnerable adult this is very important to me, because, for people who have the same health issues as I do, most of the vociferous "advocates" are people who do not have my particular health issues, they typically have a relative who does and there is a huge amount of discussion and debate around how these advocating relatives make the issues all about them, about how it affects them, about their struggle having a relative with health issues. They never give their relative a voice though, they're just neatly snipped out of the conversation. So these advocates talk about their relatives, but not for them and they certainly dont hold them up so that there voices can be heard, they use them as a platform to raise their own voice. I want to hear from the actual people who are going through the same things as me, talking about their experiences, their struggles and the supposedly helpful relatives most often seem to be shutting them out.

So representation is important to me because a lack of it impacts directly on my life. Nowhere in 40k am I represented. How does that impact on my life, how does this lack of representation deminish me in society? It honestly doesn't. If 40k vanished tomorrow, I'd be very disappointed because it gives me a lot of enjoyment and entertainment but nothing more, maybe I'd finally have to watch the footy like my uncle said so long ago! But that's just me, maybe being represented in 40k just isn't as important to me as it is to others and to that end I look forward to hearing them speak about their experiences.

 Gogsnik wrote:
What I find odd about this discussion is that, since this is the 40k background forum, the background is dismissed as made up and irrelevent, "pulled from some author's ass". So works of fiction or art have no intrinsic value? They are not unique creations worthy of preservation?

I don't think anyone has said that the background is irrelevant (although I could be wrong, it's a long thread). What we've been saying is that the background, being made up and having been subject to change at the whims of the designers for the life of the game so far, is not inviolable.

The background of the game is important. It's what makes the game what it is. It's whether or not making this particular change would have a significant impact on the background overall that is where the disagreement is coming from.

Are there any women in this thread saying that they are put off getting into 40k because space marines are all male?

In this thread? I believe there was at least one earlier on. I've seen plenty of comments from women gamers elsewhere though wanting female marines, or sharing the misogynistic abuse they receive for creating them.

Gamers by and large are ok with regular marines, vampire marines, werewolf marines, Ghost Rider marines, magical walking armour marines, and all manner of other mutations and adaptions of the geneseed... but the moment a woman is involved, it's the end of the world.

Well, aside from the one time in one of the early Black Library novels that a woman enslaved by a Chaos Marine killed him and took his armour, becoming a champion of Khorne. Everynoe seems to have just decided to forget that happened.


That's the part that I find wierd in all of this. Even ignoring the representation argument, the 40K setting is essentially a giant melting pot of 'Everything Goes'. Orks looting Tyranids? Sure, go for it! Imperial Guard wearing Napoleonic uniforms? Great! Space Marines painted like Buzz Lightyear, or with the heads of cows? Excellent, my man!

But put a female head on a Space Marine, and people are suddenly sending you death threats.


So if you disagree that representation is important, fine. Ignore representation. Let's have female space marines as an official thing just to stop the grognards from carrying on like it's some sort of civilisation-ending sin.

So works of fiction or art have no intrinsic value? They are not unique creations worthy of preservation?

No one wants to go back and re-write all those BL books that had boys-only marines (mostly because it'd be a waste of time, 90% of BL books arent worth the paper they were printed on like all licensed media). GW already "disregarded" their old lore by introducing a brand new flavor of marines, because GW has no respect for it's "lore. To GW, it's lore is a commodity to sell, and thus primaris, or completely rewriting the necrons from almost ground up despite them having existing lore.

As for lack of fem-marines being exclusive to women, to some it is, and to almost all I ever talked to, it's a symptom of how much they're not wanted BY the community. The mere suggestion of female marines is met with incredible Old Boys Club resistance that lets them know exactly what they're getting into.

RPGs had the same issue at one time, but then 2000s happened and they grew up and now they get the most of female nerds.

Reasons given for not allowing female marines.

1. The lore. 13 words published 32 years ago. I still have the original book it was printed in, sadly not the white dwarf. I would say 70% of that book is no longer official lore. Squats, a whole army is gone. Beastmen, guard and marine jet bikes, guard using land raiders and rhinos, imperial robots as they were, eldar dreadnoughts with eldar in them, the organisation of a spacemarine army. Most articles in there aren’t in the lore today. The background is important, but it isn’t absolute.

2. Politics should be kept out of war games. Firstly, why? It’s in every aspect of our lives why not our hobbies and bad news guys, 40K is already steeped in politics. What you actually mean is politics you don’t like should be kept out of 40K. Well tough, you don’t gate keep this hobby for everyone.

3. It would mean more focus on marines and more releases for them when they are already over represented. Maybe not, it could be done very easily and slipped into future releases taking up no further sprue space. Chuck a few pronouns in some text, add a named characters. Done. By the way, there already future marine releases planned, that shouldn’t come as a shock.

4. It’s not needed, there are bigger issues in the world. No one is denying that there are bigger issues. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make small differences when we can as a society. This is an easy fix and if it makes only a small number of people feel more welcome then good and even better if it drives away or shuts up a small number of bigots in the hobby then we are doubly blessed.

5. It’s just a power grab? This one doesn’t even make sense. What power?? There is no nefarious plot just people hiding their bigotry behind conspiracy theories and fear. Anyone who knows me IRL would laugh at the idea of me being a social justice warrior or activist. I am not wanting to gain control of 40K, and quite how I’d manage that by arguing in favour of female marines on this forum I have no idea, I’d be better off buying gw shares and making a scene at the AGM. This excuse is quite frankly embarrassing. Moving on.

6. It would kill off 40K. I don’t believe this at all. I optimistically think that 40K is so full of bigotry and hatred that such a small inclusive change would destroy it. If I’m wrong then maybe it’s best that we kill it off but I really do believe the community is better than that and that 40K would carry on without losing a step.

I take solace in the fact that this thread has run 25 pages, when in the recent past one I started lasted less than a day before the hate and anger shut it down. Those of us pro female marines have had to tiptoe around language so as not to offend the naysayers but we have managed to have a reasonable debate about it. That in its self is progress and I thank the mods for allowing this. Fingers crossed GW take notice.

Using rogue trader lore as a vector to push change in current lore is not a working argument, most of the lore was solidified during the 90's not 80's, 3rd/4th was the expansion of the lore that was essentially beta tested in rogue trader.



Nope, this is a left wing point of view, the politicisation of all aspects of life, there is a barrier to real world overt political activism and rightly so, as the one trying to force the change I say to you, tough, you will not gatekeep those wishing to keep the status quo and we reach an impasse which is fair enough as it allows you to make your female marine models and allows us to keep our lore intact, compromise.



there are future releases sure, this is not a reason for change though.



Yes I actually agree with this however we disagree there is anything that needs to be fixed here, as I said to others we know this has nothing to do with inclusion and we are trying to shut the bigots up but they keep coming, we just disagree on whom the bigots are, I think its the political activists insisting that everything be political and wont just leave things be ignoring any argument or reasoning.



Yep, I have literally seen people make this exact statement on twitter and reddit, its not a conspiracy its a simple stand alone complex and an overt one, you as an individual do not represent the others that are doing just this and are overt about it, funny thing is its really easy to see if you look but as you say, moving on.



Nah this one is nonsense, it will not kill off 40k but courting the activists likely will in the long run and again, this has nothing to do with inclusivity in spite of some peoples opinion to the contrary, if that were the case we would see equal requests for all 40k, AOS, Munda etc. to have such representation, we do not, this is specific to Space marines as they are the poster child for Warhammer as a brand, hell in a deleted post I even said that I am not the arbitor of truth, I am not perfect and I may be wrong about this whole thing but I still have to express my opinion because I see and have experienced first hand what happens when the activists gain control of a space, they purge anyone and everyone that slightly disagree with them, the key difference is I am happy to disagree and move on and would not ban, kick etc. a person for such behaviour, the people I am referring to will do so at the first sign of any dissent, they are the biggest gatekeepers while decrying gatekeeping.



Here is the thing though, I agree with you here, we should be able to talk about this politely and I have been, I disagree with people politely, I keep within the rules and have not attacked anyone personally and purposefully been general so as not to single any one person out, I even ignored personal attacks to remain on topic, the only progress I am seeing though is a mod agrees with the female marine stance so is willing to overlook rule breaking things in favour of that, this is not progress, its a good example of what I have been saying and I agree, fingers crossed GW is taking notice and keeping these radical elements at arms length.

With all that being said I think this will be my last comment on this subject, I have made my point and if people want to discuss this further with me feel free to send me a PM.

Almost like nobody complains about AoS and Necromunda being bad with representation because they just flat out aren't.
AoS has more female models than 40k has ever had and Necromunda actually started off badly with representation among the gangs but the "2nd edition" as it were made sure to add headswaps/full models to nearly all the gangs to allow male or female body types, with some models being androgynous as well.
When you look at the lore for both AoS and Necromunda it gets gets better.
Stormcast have male, female and non-binary examples throughout the various media it has and Necromunda has made it pretty clear the Gangs don't care about sex or gender rather that an individual lives by the code of the Gang.
Maybe next time you'll do some research or read the rest of the thread before making unfounded comments.

Well this thread is certainly a wild ride.

One thing is has achieved though is giving me the headcannon that female Space Marines have always been possible, but that the chapters have almost universally avoided this due to some self deluding "We are battle BROTHERS, this is our bond (no girls allowed)" semi religious nonsense.

Which adds nicely to the very long list of reasons that Marines are horrible people.

 Gogsnik wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Cronch wrote:
Having marines be only male is already a political statement.

Yeah, I've made this point and I'm not seeing it addressed anywhere.

Since Rogue Trader and the original Chapter Approved article were both written by Rick Priestly, I'll let him answer your question: "I don’t think any of us thought about what we doing in quite such depth at the time. Great read though and it made me smile. One aspect of characterization that I feel is often missed in Warhammer, is that many of the invented personalities and cultures have a deliberately self-deceiving quality. What they are and what they believe themselves to be are in conflict – and ultimately that gives you the idea of Troll Slayers, which is uniquely and almost definitively one of Richard Halliwell’s finest concepts. I don’t think we took ourselves all that seriously or felt the need to do so though. The 40K universe was certainly conceived in the same spirit. It always amused me that the GW Mail Order ‘Trolls’ as we (starting with me) had always styled ourselves insisted as being rebranded ‘Space Marines’. Why anyone would want to be associated with semi-lobotomized, hypnotically indoctrinated slave-soldiers in thrall to an uncaring (and possibly non-existent) god I couldn’t imagine. But times change, don’t they."

The bolded is correct. And thankfully, we're beginning to understand that putting in a throwaway line about how women can't be part of your (to be) most iconic faction maybe isn't as a harmless and innocent as once thought.
Sure, Rick can turn around and say "well, it's not serious, and who'd want to be a Space Marine anyway", but "it was just a joke" doesn't excuse the gak women have had to deal with in the fallout, and the branding around what Space Marines are has similarly changed significantly.

As the man says, "times change", and we should be aware of that.

What I find odd about this discussion is that, since this is the 40k background forum, the background is dismissed as made up and irrelevent, "pulled from some author's ass". So works of fiction or art have no intrinsic value? They are not unique creations worthy of preservation?

As an artist myself, no, works of fiction don't have intrinsic value. Only what one ascribes to them. And frankly, why on earth would you want to preserve "only men can be Space Marines"?

GW themselves don't preserve their own lore religiously, that much is clear, and people still stick around. So why is "women can't be Space Marines" something you'd want to keep around, and why is it the hill to die on?

So you have what seems to be a passing couple looking in the window, a woman at the front, with some Warcry as the main display.

Warcry, part of AoS, which has always been more representative than 40k? Not the best example.

No-one's saying that GW is entirely anti-women - but 40k for the most part is a hell of a lot more toxic towards women than GW's other offerings.

What exactly puts anyone off going into the shop? Nothing

Other than the pervasive "boys only" culture still permeating the hobby? Yes, there's been change and progress, but that culture still exists, especially in many in-person places. I genuinely feel like you're being very dismissive of that.

; well, not if they like that sort of thing, plenty of people do think warhammer is a little but gak don't they and I suppose natural disinclination would stop them from going in, but anyone who's curious? Welcome potential customer, do you need any glue??

Natural disinclination? What does that mean?

But do you think a random person walking by, knowing nothing of warhammer, knows anything about any of the background? Doesn't seem likely

Exactly. So they'll just see how there's an endless sea of male faces in the most iconic and marketed faction (Space Marines), see no women, and won't know about the "totally valid lore reasons" about why "its about biology, see, women's bodies can't handle super soldier juice!" - they'll just see how there's no women in the flagship faction, and infer from that "huh - guess this is a boys thing" and look elsewhere - maybe into AoS.

This is what I mean about visibility. Someone walking by with no knowledge of 40k will see the flagship faction as an absolute sausage fest, and what message are they meant to take from that?

Are women put off 40k because space marines are all male? I don't see how

Maybe that's the problem here. You might not see how, but that doesn't mean that it's not true. Is it true of all women? Absolutely not, but does it exist? Yes.

and the arguments set forth in this thread claiming they are seem unhinged and verging on the sort of creepy, cringey neckbeard-i-ness that is apparently rife within the community.

How so? You say "claiming" they are - there was a link earlier in this thread to an all-women Space Marine project created by women because of this very issue. You can't say "claiming" when there's the literal proof right there.

Stop acting like this isn't a problem because you don't perceive it.

As a woman poster on twitter put it, in response to a tweet not unlike many I've read on this thread: "Way to gatekeep. Not everyone wants to be miserable and obsessed with politics. You’re the type of person that pushed me away from this game for so long."

And as many other women posting on twitter have said, they'd love some women Space Marines, and detest the boys club mentality it promotes.

I'd quote verbatim, but there's a *lot* of women calling for it. But, let's assume you didn't care about their testimony anyways - I'd still have to ask:
Why is including women "politics"? How is wanting women to be included gatekeeping? Why is wanting women to be cool super soldiers "miserable and obsessed with politics"? And most importantly, what is even wrong with including women Space Marines?

Simple questions, people.

Are there any women in this thread saying that they are put off getting into 40k because space marines are all male?

I'm not going to assume anyone's gender in this group, but I will again reference you to the Angels of Purification project as an example of women put off by the all-boys mentality.

Do with that as you will.

The question I ask myself is this: if female space marines are included for the purposes of adding representation for women into the space marine faction, what do women get out of it?

Representation? It's kinda obvious.

I flip to the counterpoint - by continuing to exclude women from Space Marines, what does anyone get out of it?

The purpose of representation is to provide power and influence, important for anyone whom, from a lack of representation is denied agency over their own life within society. As a vulnerable adult this is very important to me, because, for people who have the same health issues as I do, most of the vociferous "advocates" are people who do not have my particular health issues, they typically have a relative who does and there is a huge amount of discussion and debate around how these advocating relatives make the issues all about them, about how it affects them, about their struggle having a relative with health issues. They never give their relative a voice though, they're just neatly snipped out of the conversation. So these advocates talk about their relatives, but not for them and they certainly dont hold them up so that there voices can be heard, they use them as a platform to raise their own voice.

Right, but what are people trying to raise their voice *for* exactly? Because the only things I'm seeing here is "we want representation for women, because there's no good reason that they should be excluded in the first place, and that not featuring women in the most prominent places in the hobby sends a message that women are not valued as highly in the hobby".

I'm not hearing any women's testimonies be ignored or trampled on, unlike from everyone else who seems to imply that no women care about this issue, and I've still yet to receive any answer on as to why women Space Marines are a problem in the first place!

I want to hear from the actual people who are going through the same things as me, talking about their experiences, their struggles and the supposedly helpful relatives most often seem to be shutting them out.

Again - go look for the Angels of Purification project linked earlier in this thread.

So representation is important to me because a lack of it impacts directly on my life. Nowhere in 40k am I represented. How does that impact on my life, how does this lack of representation deminish me in society? It honestly doesn't. If 40k vanished tomorrow, I'd be very disappointed because it gives me a lot of enjoyment and entertainment but nothing more, maybe I'd finally have to watch the footy like my uncle said so long ago! But that's just me, maybe being represented in 40k just isn't as important to me as it is to others and to that end I look forward to hearing them speak about their experiences.

Yes, that is just you. And that's totally valid! If you personally don't need representation, that's great, and you're entitled to that.

But why are you using that to crush other people's requests for representation? Why does having women Space Marines affect you negatively? Why would getting rid of an outdated, exclusionary few words of lore from decades ago be a problem? Why does the idea of other people getting some representation they want put you on the defensive?

Why is "we should have women Space Marines" such a controversial statement?

 Formosa wrote:


Nah this one is nonsense, it will not kill off 40k but courting the activists likely will in the long run and again, this has nothing to do with inclusivity in spite of some peoples opinion to the contrary, if that were the case we would see equal requests for all 40k, AOS, Munda etc. to have such representation, we do not, this is specific to Space marines as they are the poster child for Warhammer as a brand, .

Right, which is why we definitely did NOT see:

-People ask for, and receive, female stormcast eternals after the initial first wave where they were all-male for no adequately explored reason

-People ask for, and receive, female imperial guard heads after they spent years and years all-male for no adequately explored reason

-People ask for, and receive, female Goliaths, female Orlocks, and male Eschers after they were initially released monogender

-People ask for, and receive, female GSC after the first wave was all-male for no adequately explored reason

-People ask for, and receive, male T'au models after they had been all-male in every helmetless sculpt since their release for no adequately explored reason

BuT wHy Do ThEy OnLy EvEr AsK fOr SpAcE mArInE rEpReSeNtAtIoN??????!?!?!one

 Formosa wrote:

Spoiler:

1. The lore. 13 words published 32 years ago. I still have the original book it was printed in, sadly not the white dwarf. I would say 70% of that book is no longer official lore. Squats, a whole army is gone. Beastmen, guard and marine jet bikes, guard using land raiders and rhinos, imperial robots as they were, eldar dreadnoughts with eldar in them, the organisation of a spacemarine army. Most articles in there aren’t in the lore today. The background is important, but it isn’t absolute.

Using rogue trader lore as a vector to push change in current lore is not a working argument, most of the lore was solidified during the 90's not 80's, 3rd/4th was the expansion of the lore that was essentially beta tested in rogue trader.

Hang on, hang on - so you're saying that old lore shouldn't be used to justify modern lore?

Why should we still be paying attention to that line about "no women Space Marines" then?

And again, "solidified" - tell that to the Necrons, Guilliman, and Primaris. Hell, tell it to the Horus Heresy. The lore has never been irrevocably "solidified", and nothing is above GW retconning it. What I have to ask is why women Space Marines is such a sacred issue.

Spoiler:

2. Politics should be kept out of war games. Firstly, why? It’s in every aspect of our lives why not our hobbies and bad news guys, 40K is already steeped in politics. What you actually mean is politics you don’t like should be kept out of 40K. Well tough, you don’t gate keep this hobby for everyone

Nope, this is a left wing point of view, the politicisation of all aspects of life, there is a barrier to real world overt political activism and rightly so, as the one trying to force the change I say to you, tough, you will not gatekeep those wishing to keep the status quo and we reach an impasse which is fair enough as it allows you to make your female marine models and allows us to keep our lore intact, compromise.

The inclusion of women isn't political though. The existence of women isn't political. The *exclusion* of them very much is.

Also, reminder that maintaining the status quo is a political opinion, not an apolitical one.

Again, I ask - why does keeping the lore intact mean more to you than women getting representation?

Spoiler:

3. It would mean more focus on marines and more releases for them when they are already over represented. Maybe not, it could be done very easily and slipped into future releases taking up no further sprue space. Chuck a few pronouns in some text, add a named characters. Done. By the way, there already future marine releases planned, that shouldn’t come as a shock.

there are future releases sure, this is not a reason for change though.

It's not a reason for change, no. The reason for change is well established as being for representation. But you seem to believe that simply changing 13 words and adding a new sprue would be grounds for a whole new revamp of the Astartes range. It doesn't. That's a problem you're inventing.

Spoiler:

4. It’s not needed, there are bigger issues in the world. No one is denying that there are bigger issues. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make small differences when we can as a society. This is an easy fix and if it makes only a small number of people feel more welcome then good and even better if it drives away or shuts up a small number of bigots in the hobby then we are doubly blessed.

Yes I actually agree with this however we disagree there is anything that needs to be fixed here, as I said to others we know this has nothing to do with inclusion and we are trying to shut the bigots up but they keep coming, we just disagree on whom the bigots are, I think its the political activists insisting that everything be political and wont just leave things be ignoring any argument or reasoning.

No, you're pretending like this is some conspiratorial grab for "power"(?), and refuse to believe how it is just as simple as inclusion and representation. You're wilfully misrepresenting and ignoring other users, making any effort communicating with you an utter waste of time.

I repeat - including women isn't political, "leaving things as they are" is not an apolitical stance, and the testimony of real people and their feelings is much more important than 30 year old lore.

Spoiler:

5. It’s just a power grab? This one doesn’t even make sense. What power?? There is no nefarious plot just people hiding their bigotry behind conspiracy theories and fear. Anyone who knows me IRL would laugh at the idea of me being a social justice warrior or activist. I am not wanting to gain control of 40K, and quite how I’d manage that by arguing in favour of female marines on this forum I have no idea, I’d be better off buying gw shares and making a scene at the AGM. This excuse is quite frankly embarrassing. Moving on.

Yep, I have literally seen people make this exact statement on twitter and reddit, its not a conspiracy its a simple stand alone complex and an overt one, you as an individual do not represent the others that are doing just this and are overt about it, funny thing is its really easy to see if you look but as you say, moving on.

Uh, no. You mean you've seen some crackpot theories, and have decided that anything you don't like is part of it.
It's really easy to see if you're inventing stuff, I suppose.

Spoiler:

6. It would kill off 40K. I don’t believe this at all. I optimistically think that 40K is so full of bigotry and hatred that such a small inclusive change would destroy it. If I’m wrong then maybe it’s best that we kill it off but I really do believe the community is better than that and that 40K would carry on without losing a step.

Nah this one is nonsense, it will not kill off 40k but courting the activists likely will in the long run

The "activists" have been here for years. I'm just sick of hearing the same excuses to oppose fair representation - excuses which I self-admittedly once gave. I've been lucky enough to self-reflect, and realise that inclusion hurts no-one, and representation will not negatively affect my enjoyment of the hobby.

These "activists" you're so afraid of? They're already here.

and again, this has nothing to do with inclusivity in spite of some peoples opinion to the contrary

Repeating your conspiracies don't make them true, I'm afraid.

if that were the case we would see equal requests for all 40k, AOS, Munda etc. to have such representation, we do not, this is specific to Space marines as they are the poster child for Warhammer as a brand

Uh, buddy, have you seen all the comments where I've been praising AoS for being more diverse? Their factions are more evenly represented, but the closest thing they have to a "poster boy" faction, the Stormcast, are gender neutral. The reason you don't hear people complaining about representation in AoS is because AoS *has* representation.

The same applies broadly to Necromunda - even the Goliaths have women members. Is it perfect, no, there's still issues with predominantly more male sculpts in Necromunda, but it's a damn sight better than 40k, hence why representation isn't a hot button issue there.

40k, and more specifically Space Marines, are brought up because 40k, and more specifically Space Marines, are GW's biggest and most visible marketing material. Necromunda is a side game, AoS is a much smaller IP, but 40k - that's the Big One. That's what Warhammer means to most people, and more specifically, Space Marines. Space Marines are the most iconic GW property, this much is obvious: and they're all men.

Yes, Space Marines are highlighted because they're the poster child, but that is because representation only matters when applied visibly. AoS and Necromunda, even if they weren't already a damn sight more diverse than 40k is, wouldn't matter as much because they're not the face of GW.

If you can't understand that representation only matters when it's visible, then no wonder this is so hard to understand for you.

hell in a deleted post I even said that I am not the arbitor of truth, I am not perfect and I may be wrong about this whole thing

You can say that again.

but I still have to express my opinion because I see and have experienced first hand what happens when the activists gain control of a space, they purge anyone and everyone that slightly disagree with them

Really? Where? When they disagree on what? What specific shade of cerulean blue you're meant to paint your Space Marines in? How long to leave a teabag in for?

Where are these purging hordes of activists? I'd love to see what places they've gained control of.

the key difference is I am happy to disagree and move on and would not ban, kick etc. a person for such behaviour, the people I am referring to will do so at the first sign of any dissent, they are the biggest gatekeepers while decrying gatekeeping.

Actively making a hobby less inclusive to women is pretty gatekeepery, if you ask me. And I don't think saying "everyone should be welcome here, so let's make the hobby itself more inclusive" is a gatekeeping statement, no?

And didn't we literally have a user in this thread saying it was okay to make hobby places toxic for women to keep them out?

Spoiler:

I take solace in the fact that this thread has run 25 pages, when in the recent past one I started lasted less than a day before the hate and anger shut it down. Those of us pro female marines have had to tiptoe around language so as not to offend the naysayers but we have managed to have a reasonable debate about it. That in its self is progress and I thank the mods for allowing this. Fingers crossed GW take notice.

Here is the thing though, I agree with you here, we should be able to talk about this politely and I have been, I disagree with people politely

Calling half the users in their thread part of a some great conspiracy and actively ignoring/misrepresenting their comments isn't polite by any stretch. Just because you've not resorted to swearing doesn't mean you've been any anywhere near civil.

fingers crossed GW is taking notice and keeping these radical elements at arms length.

Wanting women Space Marines is "radical"? Why?

people are delusional if they don't think a billion dollar company has market analysts taking a look at exactly what third-party proxy producers are making to fill in the holes in their lineup and taking actions to address the demand that isn't being filled with their products.

They have an exact figure for how much reactionary cancel culture will cost them if they do a particular thing (after the launch of AOS, they've probably got a better handle on how much a Major Nerdrage Event can cost them, as a company) and they are able to look and see that "Female (thing that GW makes that is inexplicably all-male)" is a major subcategory of third-party miniature production.

I think this boils down to conservative vs. liberal temper.

Some people would rather have 40k stay largely the same, because it's a proven and engaging concept that they are invested in. Changes, and especially, changes for extraneous reasons will not sit well with those people. "Making the hobby more inclusive" is likely not a very high priority for these people.

The opposite side likes to drive change and, ideally, towards some sort of betterment for what they perceive as a legitimate grievance. Making the hobby more inclusive will rank much higher on their list.

The two positions may be irreconcilable on certain subjects, because they are operating from wildly different premises and with different priorities.

 BertBert wrote:
I think this boils down to conservative vs. liberal temper.

Some people would rather have 40k stay largely the same, because it's a proven and engaging concept that they are invested in. Changes, and especially, changes for extraneous reasons will not sit well with those people. "Making the hobby more inclusive" is likely not a very high priority for these people.

The opposite side likes to drive change and, ideally, towards some sort of betterment for what they perceive as a legitimate grievance. Making the hobby more inclusive will rank much higher on their list.

The two positions may be irreconcilable on certain subjects, because they are operating from wildly different premises and with different priorities.

This is true, perhaps. But then I need to highlight that one side is then quite literally prioritising some made up fictional words from over 30 years ago over the feelings and representation of real human beings.
Can we call them even close to equivalent? Since when did fictional words start meaning more than treating real people fairly?

I say again - why is including women bad? Why is "no women Space Marines" so important? Why is fair representation seen as "extraneous", and is that really very fair on the people who don't fee represented?

^ What Smudge said.