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.

...Probably because in the grand scheme of things, it is kind of meaningless. It's a discussion on a third party internet forum about a small detail in the marketing material for a miniatures game.

The lore of the game is marketing material for the game, and the game is marketing material for the actual product, the miniatures, and it's being discussed on a forum that isn't owned or frequented by even a single employee that might have control over the detail. The importance of the discussion is on essentially a quantum level.

At the end of the day, the feelings and representation of real human beings has a monetary value, and the feelings and alienation of people who have made themselves emotionally invested into this aspect of their hobby being 'only boys allowed' has a monetary value.

If monetary value A increases over monetary value B, the marketing material for the marketing material for the product will be altered and small pieces of plastic representing a different set of secondary sex characteristics and gendered adornments will be added to an upcoming miniature release that was already planned anyway. Whenever they get around to a Primaris soft-replacement for jump pack assault marines and whirlwinds and thunderfire cannons, or whatever the next thing is.

If monetary value B remains higher than monetary value A, then the little bits of plastic will safely remain representing only one set of secondary sex characteristics, and the men who invest their emotional wellbeing into the reassurance that they will not be presented with the option of assembling one of their little plastic soldiers as a little plastic woman soldier, will be reassured and comforted that that option is not available to them.

Whether you consider the feelings of the person behind monetary value B to be more or less morally valuable than the person behind monetary value A is irrelevant. The thing that matters is the dollar value behind the feelings.

If the person behind monetary value B, whose hands would begin to shake, and a single tear would roll down their cheek to hang, glistening on their quivering lip upon seeing the hated small bit of plastic representing a human being with long hair pulled back into a ponytail, with eyes too large and chin too small to be what he considers "a man" then goes on and refuses to return to the shop and spend another fifty dollars on a box of small unassembled plastic soldiers, but the people behind monetary value A walks into the shop and sees the little pieces of plastic painted to represent a person who looks like them, and then feels comfortable and like this hobby is intended for them, and spends 200$ on a starter set, then the change will be made.

but if the person behind monetary value A just doesn't go into the shop at all, or if the painted piece of plastic does not cause them to feel comfortable or convince them the hobby is intended for them after all, then the change will not be made.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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?

Yes, I believe they are equivalent. Fictional words from 30 years ago are no less important than representation of actual people in a fictional setting. It's not "unfair" not to have female Space Marines, the same way it wouldn't be an utter IP destroying catastrophe if GW eventually decided to include them.
It's the artist's prerogative to decide what kind of people they want to depict in what context, and it doesn't carry any moral weight either way, which the term "unfair" would suggest.

In my view, it's a purely economic decision. GW is likely investigating this option and will, depending on forecasts and aggregated feeback, make a decision either way. They will be weighing up the risks vs. rewards just as with any other product and we'll find out what they have come up with down the line.


EDIT: Also agree with what scotsman wrote

 the_scotsman wrote:
...Probably because in the grand scheme of things, it is kind of meaningless. It's a discussion on a third party internet forum about a small detail in the marketing material for a miniatures game
...
but if the person behind monetary value A just doesn't go into the shop at all, or if the painted piece of plastic does not cause them to feel comfortable or convince them the hobby is intended for them after all, then the change will not be made.

Ultimately correct. The money is the ultimate arbiter for GW, whether I like that or not.

If it did so happen that adding women Space Marines was the thing to drive people away, the only question I'd have to wonder was "why"? In the face of all the other lore changes GW have made, all their other decisions and ideas and comments, it's "we added women Space Marines" that is the final straw? Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BertBert wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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?

Yes, I believe they are equivalent. Fictional words from 30 years ago are no less important than representation of actual people in a fictional setting.

Um, what?

You genuinely believe that fictional words are even close to the same legitimacy that real people's existence have? You can't be serious? I'd also like to add that it's not just "representation in a fictional setting" - it's representation in the physical and cultural objects of that fictional setting - such as the models themselves, the media, the marketing, the *visibility*. It's not just "representation in lore", because that already exists outside of the Space Marines. What matters is "representation in the real world" - in real world objects and media, like said models, animations, novels, marketing devices, and suchlike.
And when Space Marines make up a disproportionate majority of those real world items, that's where representation needs to happen to be effective - it needs to be visible.

These are fictional words, made up decades ago to justify the sales of toy soldiers. Can you genuinely look someone in the face who says "hey, I'm feeling kinda excluded here", and tell them "well, I know you might feel excluded, but it would really hurt my feelings if someone changed these fictional rules, so I guess you'll just have to deal with it"? Because that's genuinely incredibly callous of you.

It's not "unfair" not to have female Space Marines, the same way it wouldn't be an utter IP destroying catastrophe if GW eventually decided to include them.

Why would adding women Space Marines be utterly IP destroying? Why is it women Space Marines that is this sacred touchstone that can't be altered, or else the fanboys will jump ship and leave?

And yeah, it kinda *is* unfair, because there's been no good reason put forwards why women can't be Space Marines after all this time that doesn't take a steaming gak over *actual people*.

It's the artist's prerogative to decide what kind of people they want to depict in what context, and it doesn't carry any moral weight either way, which the term "unfair" would suggest.

So if GW went ahead and *did* included women Space Marines, you think that people shouldn't complain, because the "artist's prerogative"* is of paramount importance?

*As an artist, "artist's prerogative" is not, and has never been, an acceptable excuse for bigotry. That is something that rightfully deserves free criticism.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Argive wrote:

That is a false equivalency of my point and you know it.

Don't use words you don't understand the meaning of my man, which is demonstrated thoroughly by the fact that you yourself are committing a false equivalency by comparing adding women to a made-up fantasy setting and adding them to a setting deliberately made to resemble real-life historical events.

If you can't recognize the difference between the two settings and why adding women in the latter is worse than the former than you are either being intellectually dishonest or are just something the mods at Dakka here won't let me call you.

Glad someone called that out! As arguments go, that was somewhat bad faith.

Des702 wrote:
I feel like on the opposite side of the table here there is going to be two main camps. Those who just want to keep the boys club which I hope that would be a fairly small portion of this side. And the other half would be those who are worried about how it would be implemented and how it would affect the lore. We have seen how Hollywood can royally screwed up a beloved franchise storyline with terrible representation. Star wars being a good example of that. It also doesn't help that they moved all of the existing fiction to Legends other than the main movies.

But if they implement great characters like we've seen in the past with the aliens franchise and the older Star Trek stuff (I haven't seen the new stuff so I'm not sure) I think it could be done really well. It can do justice to the lower but also bring the representation that this setting sorely needs.

Actually it seems to me that the factions are: the ones who want adapt our hobby to their ideology and the ones who are ready to accept every change that can give us a better game experience.
Why are those two faction irreconciliable?
Simply because there aren't any reasons to create the female space marines, if not the ideological ones: the female space marines would not be able to attract more female players (how many girls/women started to play Warhammer 40.000 thank to the Sisters of Battle or the Sisters of Silence?) and they would not even improve the game, because they would be totally equal to the male space marines.
This is the simple truth (at least in my humble opinion), the people (if he want) can invent another truth, more adapt to their believes, but that would be only comfortable truth, not the real one.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

Des702 wrote:
I feel like on the opposite side of the table here there is going to be two main camps. Those who just want to keep the boys club which I hope that would be a fairly small portion of this side. And the other half would be those who are worried about how it would be implemented and how it would affect the lore. We have seen how Hollywood can royally screwed up a beloved franchise storyline with terrible representation. Star wars being a good example of that. It also doesn't help that they moved all of the existing fiction to Legends other than the main movies.

But if they implement great characters like we've seen in the past with the aliens franchise and the older Star Trek stuff (I haven't seen the new stuff so I'm not sure) I think it could be done really well. It can do justice to the lower but also bring the representation that this setting sorely needs.

Actually it seems to me that the factions are: the ones who want adapt our hobby to their ideology and the ones who are ready to accept every change that can give us a better game experience.
Why are those two faction irreconciliable?
Simply because there aren't any reasons to create the female space marines, if not the ideological ones: the female space marines would not be able to attract more female players (how many girls/women started to play Warhammer 40.000 thank to the Sisters of Battle or the Sisters of Silence?) and they would not even improve the game, because they would be totally equal to the male space marines.
This is the simple truth (at least in my humble opinion), the people (if he want) can invent another truth, more adapt to their believes, but that would be only comfortable truth, not the real one.

So then why does AoS see more women players?

Moreover, while Sisters of Battle have received a decent shot in the arm, they're nowhere near the dominance in marketing and whatnot that Space Marines are. And Sisters of Silence are much less than Sisters of Battle in terms of presence.

The thing is there chief, that the game and lore are intertwined to the point where neither can exist without the other.
You can't have the game of 40k without the setting and the setting is pretty meaningless without any way to partake in it (the game). If the setting sets a precedent for people to exclude others based on race/sex/gender then the setting is bad and needs to change. This isn't just about bringing more women/non-white's/LGBT+ folks into the hobby, it's about keeping those who are already in the hobby safe from harassment and, I can't believe I have to say this again, literal death threats.

As for women starting the hobby because of female factions, I have no idea if a revamped SoB line brought more women into the hobby space and there's no real way to tell except by going on sites like Twitter and Instagram to see if there is an uptick in accounts identifying as women hobbyists. But I'll still direct you to the point I made above about harassment etc.

Once again. The hobby isn't yours, mine, or anyone else's. It belongs to GW and I'd be willing to bet not a single person on the entire Dakka website is an executive at GW who ultimately controls anything about 40k. The only thing that's "owned" by any 40k hobbyist is the models you buy.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

Des702 wrote:
I feel like on the opposite side of the table here there is going to be two main camps. Those who just want to keep the boys club which I hope that would be a fairly small portion of this side. And the other half would be those who are worried about how it would be implemented and how it would affect the lore. We have seen how Hollywood can royally screwed up a beloved franchise storyline with terrible representation. Star wars being a good example of that. It also doesn't help that they moved all of the existing fiction to Legends other than the main movies.

But if they implement great characters like we've seen in the past with the aliens franchise and the older Star Trek stuff (I haven't seen the new stuff so I'm not sure) I think it could be done really well. It can do justice to the lower but also bring the representation that this setting sorely needs.

Actually it seems to me that the factions are: the ones who want adapt our hobby to their ideology and the ones who are ready to accept every change that can give us a better game experience.

Since when was "why can't women have equal representation" an 'ideology'?

Also, it's my hobby too. You might not have intended it, but saying "our" like that is language frequently used by gatekeepers to imply that people they don't like aren't welcome, and use that language to imply a sense of ownership and legitimacy over "others". I'm sure you weren't using it in that context, but I'd refrain from doing so - because as I said - it's also my hobby as well.

Why are those two faction irreconciliable?
Simply because there aren't any reasons to create the female space marines, if not the ideological ones

... why isn't representation a reason?

And I'll refer again to a comment I made on this - you seem to be under the idea that women need a special reason to be Space Marines, when what we *should* be asking is why there's a special reason women can't be Space Marines in the first place.

the female space marines would not be able to attract more female players (how many girls/women started to play Warhammer 40.000 thank to the Sisters of Battle or the Sisters of Silence?)

Sisters of Silence are a joke of a faction and you know it, and perhaps those women are more attracted to what Space Marines offer - namely more total customisation, units, aesthetic, and brand recognition. And that's without getting into why, as I've said, simply having all-female factions doesn't mean anything if they're not equally as visible as all-male ones, or more specifically, why even have an all-male flagship faction?

As for your claims that there wasn't a significant increase of women hobbyists with Sisters of Battle, I'd like to see your sources and in-depth research on the matter.

and they would not even improve the game, because they would be totally equal to the male space marines.

Define "improve the game"? Is representation not an improvement? Why isn't it?
More importantly, what would it detract from the game at all?

This is the simple truth (at least in my humble opinion)

So, it's not really the truth then, is it?

the people (if he want) can invent another truth, more adapt to their believes, but that would be only comfortable truth, not the real one.

Alternatively, what stops me from seeing your "truth" as another invented one, purely for your comfort?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Um, what?

You genuinely believe that fictional words are even close to the same legitimacy that real people's existence have? You can't be serious? I'd also like to add that it's not just "representation in a fictional setting" - it's representation in the physical and cultural objects of that fictional setting - such as the models themselves, the media, the marketing, the *visibility*. It's not just "representation in lore", because that already exists outside of the Space Marines. What matters is "representation in the real world" - in real world objects and media, like said models, animations, novels, marketing devices, and suchlike.
And when Space Marines make up a disproportionate majority of those real world items, that's where representation needs to happen to be effective - it needs to be visible.

These are fictional words, made up decades ago to justify the sales of toy soldiers. Can you genuinely look someone in the face who says "hey, I'm feeling kinda excluded here", and tell them "well, I know you might feel excluded, but it would really hurt my feelings if someone changed these fictional rules, so I guess you'll just have to deal with it"? Because that's genuinely incredibly callous of you.

It's not "unfair" not to have female Space Marines, the same way it wouldn't be an utter IP destroying catastrophe if GW eventually decided to include them.

Why would adding women Space Marines be utterly IP destroying? Why is it women Space Marines that is this sacred touchstone that can't be altered, or else the fanboys will jump ship and leave?

And yeah, it kinda *is* unfair, because there's been no good reason put forwards why women can't be Space Marines after all this time that doesn't take a steaming gak over *actual people*.

Is it really so surprising? If anything, the past year has taught us that there's a large percentage of the population that will prioritize their own discomfort, no matter how minor, over the literal health and safety of everyone around them, including their supposed loved ones.

Which is essentially what this discussion is boiling down to. There are vocal opponents to female space marines that are vehemently against the idea because at the end of the day, it would make them uncomfortable to see women included in space marine marketing and see a few heads and pronouns associated to space marines being changed.

And every time they're called out on their excuses--from forty year old lore to how it would literally not impact any of their models--they'll double down (oh, it's not lore from forty years ago that's important, it's lore from thirty years ago that's important!) or just find some other pointless excuse to latch on to, because for the most part it's not something that's being argued against logically or even in good faith.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

Des702 wrote:
I feel like on the opposite side of the table here there is going to be two main camps. Those who just want to keep the boys club which I hope that would be a fairly small portion of this side. And the other half would be those who are worried about how it would be implemented and how it would affect the lore. We have seen how Hollywood can royally screwed up a beloved franchise storyline with terrible representation. Star wars being a good example of that. It also doesn't help that they moved all of the existing fiction to Legends other than the main movies.

But if they implement great characters like we've seen in the past with the aliens franchise and the older Star Trek stuff (I haven't seen the new stuff so I'm not sure) I think it could be done really well. It can do justice to the lower but also bring the representation that this setting sorely needs.

Actually it seems to me that the factions are: the ones who want adapt our hobby to their ideology and the ones who are ready to accept every change that can give us a better game experience..

Changes to the lore are neutral to the game experience. If GW decided, tomorrow, that the Militarum Tempestus were a male-only military order, it would change absolutely nothing about the game experience.

This statement is the equivalent of "it seems to me there are two factions on the debate of whether pineapples should go on pizza: people who think pineapples on pizza taste good, and people who hate puppies."

Does the group of people who want to adapt your hobby to their ideology want to accept every change that cant give us a better game experience? if not, how is that at all relevant to anything?

 Formosa wrote:

Spoiler:

[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.

You are absolutely right... the left wing has typically been the portion of the political spectrum pushing for egalitarianism. One of the most main stream right wing media personalities, Tucker Carlson, is notorious for being cited by ex-KKK members as making their arguments better than they can, and blatant misogynous comments like blaming rape victims, his recent and famous comments on military policy taking it way out of context to use sexist biases to smear the military and current administration, and such amazing quotes as "I love women but they are extremely primitive," and “If you’re talking to a feminist,” he said, “and she’s given you, ‘Well, men really need to be more sensitive,’ no, actually, men don’t need to be more sensitive. You just need to be quiet and kind of do what you’re told.” Why on earth equality amongst sexes and genders is such a political issue to the right wing I will never know.

What does this have to do with female space marines? It's a dissection on your argument that this is political theater in a forum that makes little political impact, and how you want to polarize the discussion as right vs. left, and since you insist on bringing that in I figure it would be only appropriate that we observe the political right's approach to the topic of women.

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 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.

Have you not seen what happens when women try to enter 40K or what happens when they make female space marines? If death threats and constant harassment and condescending remarks like "Oh this is how your fully painted army plays" along with general creepiness is not gatekeeping, then I have no idea what is. Especially considering that at the heart of a lot of these death threats and harassments is "the lore says that space marines could never once in their lives have possessed a vagina." Maybe, we should not be giving in to a pack of donkey caves that insist that the lore that they base their justifications on for harassment and death threats, as well as having surrounded themselves with garbage that promotes implicit biases against women (if not explicit biases), rather than people advocating that this thing that is at the heart of a lot of the misogyny in the hobby should be changed?

The call for representation is of course a political one- just as the exclusion of women when creating Space Marines was a political action. Not a conscious one, but it was a product of the Zeitgeist or ideology of middle class 80s Great Britain. These nerds found white, male giants cool, because they didn't know anything else. Nothing wrong with that, but we're not in the 80's anymore and even the nerds back then didn't find that decision important enough to give it a proper explanation.

Bear with me while I fiddle with this abomination of quotes and subquotes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Um, what?

You genuinely believe that fictional words are even close to the same legitimacy that real people's existence have? You can't be serious? I'd also like to add that it's not just "representation in a fictional setting" - it's representation in the physical and cultural objects of that fictional setting - such as the models themselves, the media, the marketing, the *visibility*. It's not just "representation in lore", because that already exists outside of the Space Marines. What matters is "representation in the real world" - in real world objects and media, like said models, animations, novels, marketing devices, and suchlike.
And when Space Marines make up a disproportionate majority of those real world items, that's where representation needs to happen to be effective - it needs to be visible.

That may be your perspective, but I disagree. Nobody is entitled to being represented in fiction or a product line for that matter. Representation matters in things that govern our actual life, depictions of OUR society and world. 40k is not that, it's entirely divorced from our reality, which is what makes it so appealing in the first place. Not having female Space Marines does not invalidate the existence of women period.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

These are fictional words, made up decades ago to justify the sales of toy soldiers. Can you genuinely look someone in the face who says "hey, I'm feeling kinda excluded here", and tell them "well, I know you might feel excluded, but it would really hurt my feelings if someone changed these fictional rules, so I guess you'll just have to deal with it"? Because that's genuinely incredibly callous of you.

No, I'd probably ask them why they feel that way and try to understand the underlying issue. They I'd try to convey to them the notion that the enjoyment of any content is not contingent of yourself being represented in it. Not that I've ever met a single person who made a statement to that effect.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Why would adding women Space Marines be utterly IP destroying? Why is it women Space Marines that is this sacred touchstone that can't be altered, or else the fanboys will jump ship and leave?

I don't know, I don't have any skin in this particular game. They can make female Space Marines for all I care, but obviously there are quite a lot of people who are very much opposed to the idea, which is what that strawman was supposed to represent. If I had to take a wild guess, it's that those people have a conservative approach to the lore of 40k and fear changes that might ultimately alienate them from their hobby.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And yeah, it kinda *is* unfair, because there's been no good reason put forwards why women can't be Space Marines after all this time that doesn't take a steaming gak over *actual people*.

There are in-setting reasons for this. Men are uniquely suited to the process of creating a space marine. It's also plausible to pick exclusively male templates if you are looking to build the best super soldier. That's not particularly controversial, is it?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

So if GW went ahead and *did* included women Space Marines, you think that people shouldn't complain, because the "artist's prerogative"* is of paramount importance?

They'd be free to criticise the decision, just as much as you are free to do what you are doing right now. They'd eventually have to accept GW's decision, though.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

*As an artist, "artist's prerogative" is not, and has never been, an acceptable excuse for bigotry. That is something that rightfully deserves free criticism.

I agree, but this is not a case of bigotry, as I believe I've illustrated. The nonexistence of male Sororitas is not bigotry either, nor is Orks not having any genitalia at all. It's arbitrary parameters, chosen by the artist, that delineate the setting and give it internal consistency, none of which carry any moral weight in our actual world.

But they do carry weight-people have received literal death threats for making female Marines.

In a perfect world, it might not matter-but that ain’t the real world.

They I'd try to convey to them the notion that the enjoyment of any content is not contingent of yourself being represented in it.

Tell that to all the white men that rage online whenever they're forced to play a female character. It's amazing how their representation is important, but anyone elses' is political.

It's also plausible to pick exclusively male templates if you are looking to build the best super soldier.

Compared to even other primates, human sexual dimorphism might as well not exist. Given how extensive marine biological and cybernetic modifications are, what the baseline subject was would be completely irrelevant. It's like saying having good eyesight is important when you're using the hubble telescope.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But they do carry weight-people have received literal death threats for making female Marines.

In a perfect world, it might not matter-but that ain’t the real world.

Some people are unable to divorce fiction from reality, as both extremes in this debate have illustrated quite nicely. Doesn't mean that either of them are correct in their assertions, though.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Tell that to all the white men that rage online whenever they're forced to play a female character.

I would if they were to confront me with that kind of argument. I preferred FemShep tbh.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Compared to even other primates, human sexual dimorphism might as well not exist. Given how extensive marine biological and cybernetic modifications are, what the baseline subject was would be completely irrelevant. It's like saying having good eyesight is important when you're using the hubble telescope.

That might be the case (we can't know) and you could easily explain away all possible issues with Femarines if that's what you are going for. It's still disingenuous to suggest that there is no merit at all to the argument that men make for better soldiers on average as well as in the extremes.

Again, people need to have a better understanding of base facts. There is no "subjective" meaning of words. If you don't think the counter point to "We should include women in 40k more predominantly" isn't an issue of bigotry, I don't know how to convince you.

Here is the literal definition:

"obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

So what SHOULD we call a small subset of players clinging to 13 words as justification of a belief against women? Mormons? No wait, I got this.

LORONS!

 JNAProductions wrote:
But they do carry weight-people have received literal death threats for making female Marines.

In a perfect world, it might not matter-but that ain’t the real world.

To be fair, this being the age of the internet, death threats aren't exactly uncommon and you can have anybody anonymously threaten you for the dumbest reasons. It still isn't right but I feel that the toxicity of the internet is something people should be kind of used to at this point if you plan to do anything public on social media. People will crap on you for baking things differently from them, so even something as innocuous as female SM can have that happen to them, its not unique to them in anyway.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


Again, people need to have a better understanding of base facts. There is no "subjective" meaning of words. If you don't think the counter point to "We should include women in 40k more predominantly" isn't an issue of bigotry, I don't know how to convince you.

Here is the literal definition:

"obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

So what SHOULD we call a small subset of players clinging to 13 words as justification of a belief against women? Mormons? No wait, I got this.

LORONS!

Let's be specific though: "We should include women in 40k more predominantly" is referring to customers or in-setting characters? Bigotry does not extend to fictional universes and I hope nobody is arguing against introducing more women into the hobby.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
The call for representation is of course a political one- just as the exclusion of women when creating Space Marines was a political action. Not a conscious one, but it was a product of the Zeitgeist or ideology of middle class 80s Great Britain. These nerds found white, male giants cool, because they didn't know anything else. Nothing wrong with that, but we're not in the 80's anymore and even the nerds back then didn't find that decision important enough to give it a proper explanation.

Now, I can't argue with that - I'm totally in agreement that inclusion is political if we're saying that exclusion is. It's the seeming double standard of "keeping things as they are isn't political at all", which is definitely just as political.

 BertBert wrote:
Bear with me while I fiddle with this abomination of quotes and subquotes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Um, what?

You genuinely believe that fictional words are even close to the same legitimacy that real people's existence have? You can't be serious? I'd also like to add that it's not just "representation in a fictional setting" - it's representation in the physical and cultural objects of that fictional setting - such as the models themselves, the media, the marketing, the *visibility*. It's not just "representation in lore", because that already exists outside of the Space Marines. What matters is "representation in the real world" - in real world objects and media, like said models, animations, novels, marketing devices, and suchlike.
And when Space Marines make up a disproportionate majority of those real world items, that's where representation needs to happen to be effective - it needs to be visible.

That may be your perspective, but I disagree. Nobody is entitled to being represented in fiction or a product line for that matter.

Nobody is "entitled", but why aren't women represented then?

Even if we accept that representation isn't a "right", it doesn't explain for a moment why women shouldn't be represented in the first place.

Representation matters in things that govern our actual life, depictions of OUR society and world.

40k is part of the real world though. It is a real world hobby and activity that real world people enjoy, interact with, and is a great part of many people's lives.
It might not depict our world, but it features *us*, humans.

40k is not that, it's entirely divorced from our reality, which is what makes it so appealing in the first place.

So why would the biological arguments trotted out about "different biology means women can't be Space Marines" matter either?

And again - what part of "no women Space Marines" is appealing? Why is that considered something you'd want to keep?

Not having female Space Marines does not invalidate the existence of women period.

Except it very much does in the *real world hobby*. Sure, in the fantasy of 40k, maybe not, but considering that the fantasy of 40k is still a product sold and marketed in the real world, you'd be naive to think that it's divorced from reality.

You can't trot out "but it's all made up so it doesn't matter", and then cry about how much it matters when people want to change it. Why would adding women Space Marines be a problem?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

These are fictional words, made up decades ago to justify the sales of toy soldiers. Can you genuinely look someone in the face who says "hey, I'm feeling kinda excluded here", and tell them "well, I know you might feel excluded, but it would really hurt my feelings if someone changed these fictional rules, so I guess you'll just have to deal with it"? Because that's genuinely incredibly callous of you.

No, I'd probably ask them why they feel that way and try to understand the underlying issue.

The underlying issue that they're not treated seriously and equally, as people, with their own wants and heroes. Just like you're doing here, undermining them wanting representation.

They I'd try to convey to them the notion that the enjoyment of any content is not contingent of yourself being represented in it.

I'd like to see you try. And what happens when they laugh that out the window? You'll just ignore them, call them hysterical, and sit smugly proud that there's no way that women could actually want representation, and clearly these women are delusional for wanting it?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Why would adding women Space Marines be utterly IP destroying? Why is it women Space Marines that is this sacred touchstone that can't be altered, or else the fanboys will jump ship and leave?

I don't know, I don't have any skin in this particular game. They can make female Space Marines for all I care, but obviously there are quite a lot of people who are very much opposed to the idea, which is what that strawman was supposed to represent. If I had to take a wild guess, it's that those people have a conservative approach to the lore of 40k and fear changes that might ultimately alienate them from their hobby.

As you're answering and arguing on their behalf, then I'll ask for an answer from you: why would adding women Space Marines alienate men from the hobby? Why would that change, a change of inclusion, be alienating?

You can't say "I don't know" when you continue to argue very much against their inclusion.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And yeah, it kinda *is* unfair, because there's been no good reason put forwards why women can't be Space Marines after all this time that doesn't take a steaming gak over *actual people*.

There are in-setting reasons for this. Men are uniquely suited to the process of creating a space marine. It's also plausible to pick exclusively male templates if you are looking to build the best super soldier. That's not particularly controversial, is it?

In setting reasons is a fancy way of saying "pulled an excuse out of my ass". There's no reason that lore needs to exist, the magical space super soldier serum not working on women is entirely arbitrary, and it's inclusion is specifically there to deny the possibility of women Astartes - it's absolutely controversial.

Also, actually, the in-universe reason is based in "real world biology" and "science" - which a few paragraphs ago, you said should have no bearing on 40k. So which one is it? Does the real world matter, or doesn't it?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

So if GW went ahead and *did* included women Space Marines, you think that people shouldn't complain, because the "artist's prerogative"* is of paramount importance?

They'd be free to criticise the decision, just as much as you are free to do what you are doing right now. They'd eventually have to accept GW's decision, though.

They don't *have* to accept anything. What I'd have to ask is why they'd criticise the inclusion of women Space Marines.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

*As an artist, "artist's prerogative" is not, and has never been, an acceptable excuse for bigotry. That is something that rightfully deserves free criticism.

I agree, but this is not a case of bigotry, as I believe I've illustrated.

You've illustrated nothing. Your only argument has been "but the lore says so". I say that the lore is made up, completely arbitrary, and serves no artistic merit other than excluding women. No-one has made an argument on *why* the lore should stay the same other than "because it's the lore", or even made an argument justifying all-male Marines from an artistic level.

It might not be a case of deliberate bigotry, but as a reflection of the very much more male-dominated culture it was created in, it certainly is - because, as I mention, they literally had to invent a reason why women couldn't be in their club.

The nonexistence of male Sororitas is not bigotry either

Because the in-universe explanation actually carries thematic elements that actually develop ideas and themes, not to mention coupled that the Sororitas faction already contains men anyway, in the form of Priests, Arco-Flagellants, and other attached units.
This is also ignoring that Space Marines are the literal poster boys faction, and must be held to a different standard, because they quite literally are held to that standard by GW themselves.

nor is Orks not having any genitalia at all.

Orks aren't even human.

It's arbitrary parameters, chosen by the artist, that delineate the setting and give it internal consistency, none of which carry any moral weight in our actual world.

And that's not enough to excuse blatant exclusivity for no good reason.

Tell me about internal consistency when I have a Primaris Marine sat on my desk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BertBert wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But they do carry weight-people have received literal death threats for making female Marines.

In a perfect world, it might not matter-but that ain’t the real world.

Some people are unable to divorce fiction from reality, as both extremes in this debate have illustrated quite nicely. Doesn't mean that either of them are correct in their assertions, though.

Some people are unable to accept representation as a valid desire. Doesn't mean they're right either.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Tell that to all the white men that rage online whenever they're forced to play a female character.

I would if they were to confront me with that kind of argument. I preferred FemShep tbh.

FemShep is best Shep.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Compared to even other primates, human sexual dimorphism might as well not exist. Given how extensive marine biological and cybernetic modifications are, what the baseline subject was would be completely irrelevant. It's like saying having good eyesight is important when you're using the hubble telescope.

That might be the case (we can't know) and you could easily explain away all possible issues with Femarines if that's what you are going for. It's still disingenuous to suggest that there is no merit at all to the argument that men make for better soldiers on average as well as in the extremes.

But that's real world logic. I thought you wanted to divorce the Real World from this fantasy one?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimskul wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But they do carry weight-people have received literal death threats for making female Marines.

In a perfect world, it might not matter-but that ain’t the real world.

To be fair, this being the age of the internet, death threats aren't exactly uncommon and you can have anybody anonymously threaten you for the dumbest reasons. It still isn't right but I feel that the toxicity of the internet is something people should be kind of used to at this point if you plan to do anything public on social media. People will crap on you for baking things differently from them, so even something as innocuous as female SM can have that happen to them, its not unique to them in anyway.

So you think nothing should be done? Like, you know, taking away any form of ammunition they can use to continue to spread their hatred, such as, I don't know, 13 little words of lore?

Is keeping those 13 words more important to you than de-legitimising the threats and harassment aimed at members of our community?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to work through all of that a second time. Let's agree to disagree on this and move on.

 BertBert wrote:
Let's be specific though: "We should include women in 40k more predominantly" is referring to customers or in-setting characters?

Featuring women more predominantly in setting promotes women customers. This has been quite clear in most forms of nerd/geek media, actually - including AoS.

Bigotry does not extend to fictional universes

So why can't women be Space Marines? Or, more specifically, why does the lore say women can't be Space Marines?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BertBert wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to work through all of that a second time. Let's agree to disagree on this and move on.

I asked you some pretty simple questions. Even if you don't have answers for my other comments, why won't you answer my basic questions?

I'll repost here, just for clarity: "Why would adding women Space Marines alienate men from the hobby?"
"What part of "no women Space Marines" is appealing? Why is that considered something you'd want to keep?"

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So why can't women be Space Marines? Or, more specifically, why does the lore say women can't be Space Marines?

Because there is an in-universe explanation that is both plausible and consistent with the human condition.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I asked you some pretty simple questions. Even if you don't have answers for my other comments, why won't you answer my basic questions?
I'll repost here, just for clarity: "Why would adding women Space Marines alienate men from the hobby?"

Why did the creation of Primaris alienate people from the hobby? Because it marked a significant departure from established lore (in addition to other factors). That's my take on it. If you remember, I started this whole reply chain with the assertion that it's probably in large part a matter of conservative vs. liberal temper.

I hate Space Marines and would love if no more Marines were ever made ever. But at this point I kinda want GW to make female versions of every single Marine unit that currently exists just so the bigots will leave the hobby permanently.

Sorry chief that ain't a good point to make. Sure it's not unique but it's about the volume and consistency of said harassment and threats as well as why the person is being targeted at all. If you go onto social media every day to post some hobby stuff and your posts are covered in misogynistic and bigoted nonsense, then go to your messages to chat to your internet friends and those to are filled with misogyny, bigotry and death threats, I ask you this. How are you meant to ignore that? Your solution to women/LGBT+/non-white people being harassed and sent death threats because they dared to do 40k is "just ignore it"?


The only basis for that is a piece of lore that GW has said comes from outdated sources. The newer SM lore says nout about males being prefered for the process. Also, I can think of a couple of "super-soldier" groups that don't require a male to be successful like Halo's Spartans, Destiny's Guardians, Witchers sort of, and the serum from Marvel that makes Captain America wasn't just for men.

 BertBert wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So why can't women be Space Marines? Or, more specifically, why does the lore say women can't be Space Marines?

Because there is an in-universe explanation that is both plausible and consistent with the human condition.

But I thought that you didn't want real world stuff in your 40k?

Also, you know what else is plausible? The magic made up space serum juice works on women too! That sounds pretty plausible and believable too.
So I ask again - *why* can't women be Space Marines? The lore reason is built on a made up restriction, so why does that restriction exist?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I asked you some pretty simple questions. Even if you don't have answers for my other comments, why won't you answer my basic questions?
I'll repost here, just for clarity: "Why would adding women Space Marines alienate men from the hobby?"

Why did the creation of Primaris alienate people from the hobby? Because it marked a significant departure from established lore (in addition to other factors).

And yet so many people remain. So why would those people leave when Space Marines are made into - shock, horror - women?

What is it about Space Marines having women in their ranks that is so horrifying? Why on earth would that alienate someone? The lore departs from itself with every new model or book GW put out. If people thought that the lore was this unchanging holy scripture, they were never right in the first place.

That's my take on it. If you remember, I started this whole reply chain with the assertion that it's probably in large part a matter of conservative vs. liberal temper.

To which I similarly responded that this is ultimately a discussion between if made up words mean more than real human beings.

I'm pretty sure that should have been a clear cut conundrum, but evidently, it seems that some people really *are* that uncaring of their fellow people.

What human condition? This one?
"The human condition is all of the characteristics and key events that compose the essentials of human existence, including birth, growth, emotion, aspiration, conflict, and mortality."
Birth? Yup girls get born. Growth? Yup girls grow into women. Emotion? Yup women have emotions. Aspiration? Yup women have that too. Conflict? It's 40k, conflict is a given. Mortality? Yup women can indeed die.



That doesn't make it ok for people to be excluded and told "you don't get representation because it's always been that way".

Using Primaris Marines as some example of "change = alienation" is extra hilarious because Primaris Marines are the sole reason why GW has enjoyed record profits and skyhigh stock prices over the past 4 years.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Since when did fictional words start meaning more than treating real people fairly?

Possibly since the beginning of organized religion.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Using Primaris Marines as some example of "change = alienation" is extra hilarious because Primaris Marines are the sole reason why GW has enjoyed record profits and skyhigh stock prices over the past 4 years.

No. No. That's not true. That's impossible!