Switch Theme:

Heresy of the worst kind  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 Insectum7 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Since when did fictional words start meaning more than treating real people fairly?
Possibly since the beginning of organized religion.
And has that excused any of it?


They/them

 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





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

40k is still about humans and our galaxy. It's obviously informed by our reality, but it doesn't have the depth nor the ambition to inform our reality.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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?

Less plausible, but yes, it's not unthinkable. Why the restriction was made in the first place? How would I know? I wasn't sitting at the conference table when that particular facet of the lore was made up.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

And people would still remain after the introduction of female marines. It might even give the game an overall boost, who knows?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.


Which is what I consider to be a simplistic take at best, and a disingenous one at worst. We've worked through all of that already.
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





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

40k is still about humans and our galaxy. It's obviously informed by our reality, but it doesn't have the depth nor the ambition to inform our reality.
So... women are part of our reality though, right? Humans still includes women.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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?

Less plausible, but yes, it's not unthinkable. Why the restriction was made in the first place? How would I know? I wasn't sitting at the conference table when that particular facet of the lore was made up.
So if you can't justify the restriction retroactively, can you justify its inclusion now? Why should it stick around if you can't justify it's inclusion - that's the hallmark of how actual artists work and refine their work.
And why is it "less plausible" in the first place? It's a magical goddamn space serum - what's plausible in the first place?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

And people would still remain after the introduction of female marines. It might even give the game an overall boost, who knows?
But you just claimed that it would alienate people. Care to elaborate on that?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.


Which is what I consider to be a simplistic take at best, and a disingenous one at worst.
Explain. Why are words more important than people?
We've worked through all of that already.
No, we haven't. We've only asserted that you seem to value fiction over real actual human beings, which is honestly *alarming*, as a human being.


They/them

 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Explain. Why are words more important than people?

Fine, one last time (because I like you so much):

They aren't, it's a misrepresentation of my position.
   
Made in gb
Walking Dead Wraithlord






It boils down to:

"You disagree with female space marines? You must be a bigot because only a bigot would disagree"
Im sure the usual suspects are about to post a wall of text explaining to me how im wrong and insinuating im basically a bigot for disagreeing unironically.

There is no rational debate that can be had when that is the core lynchpin of the discussion...

We had some great people chime in but only one side seems to pile on and mob dissenting opinion... People are rubbing each other bellies and seeking that sweet sweet affirmation that they are on the same side. Its scary to watch how quickly people conform lest they be called a "biggot.." Look through the thread and see how many people say "whoa whoa im on your side" the minute they appear to no toe the "party line".

Very disappointed with Mods taking sides and actively telling people to leave the community if they point out this has gotten into the realm of culture war politics

There is like zero point to making this post because nobody really cares.
Everyone has their own agendas and opinions. I'm not alluding myself that I will change anyone mind.
Its just sad people are afraid to talk openly or risk getting mobbed.

I'm happy to disagree with people.
If people think I'm an a-hole that's ok I guess, think what you want. I don't owe anyone anything.
It literarily means zero to me, because of mean words on the internet are nothing.


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






Then why are you posting the words? You don't think you're contributing to the discussion and don't think anyone cares. If you actually think that then why get involved in the first place?
You came in and took a stance then when people disagreed with you more more they agreed you've decided the whole world is against you and nothing you say matters.
I'm trying to understand what your position actually is because all I can see is someone who had their opinion challenged and didn't like that people disagreed with them, continued posting in the discussion and then leaves acting like the whole thing was beneath them in the first place.

And for someone who doesn't want politics in their hobby you use a heck of a lot of buzz words and phrases used by right-wing click-baiters dude.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/07 22:37:00


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 BertBert wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Explain. Why are words more important than people?

Fine, one last time (because I like you so much):

They aren't, it's a misrepresentation of my position.
What part about "Fictional words from 30 years ago are no less important than representation of actual people in a fictional setting" am I misrepresenting?

Are fictional words more important than real people or not?


They/them

 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
 BertBert wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Explain. Why are words more important than people?

Fine, one last time (because I like you so much):

They aren't, it's a misrepresentation of my position.
What part about "Fictional words from 30 years ago are no less important than representation of actual people in a fictional setting" am I misrepresenting?


The part where "Representation of actual people in fiction" equates to "people".
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 Argive wrote:
It boils down to:

"You disagree with female space marines? You must be a bigot because only a bigot would disagree"
No, it's just I've yet to see a good reason why you'd disagree with women Astartes without falling back on outdated and poorly justified lore.

Can you provide a better reason?
There is no rational debate that can be had when that is the core lynchpin of the discussion...
You're right. There can be no rational debate when one side is implying that women don't deserve fair representation for some fictional lore reason.

We had some great people chime in but only one side seems to pile on and mob dissenting opinion... People are rubbing each other bellies and seeking that sweet sweet affirmation that they are on the same side. Its scary to watch how quickly people conform lest they be called a "biggot.." Look through the thread and see how many people say "whoa whoa im on your side" the minute they appear to no toe the "party line".
Because there's no way that people just happen to agree on this, and are all secretly hiding their beliefs to avoid being cancelled?

Whatever helps you rationalise it.

Very disappointed with Mods taking sides and actively telling people to leave the community if they point out this has gotten into the realm of culture war politics
Women existing in fiction isn't "culture war politics".

Its just sad people are afraid to talk openly or risk getting mobbed.
Have you just considered that maybe you're just on your own, and other people just disagree with you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BertBert wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
 BertBert wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Explain. Why are words more important than people?

Fine, one last time (because I like you so much):

They aren't, it's a misrepresentation of my position.
What part about "Fictional words from 30 years ago are no less important than representation of actual people in a fictional setting" am I misrepresenting?


The part where "Representation of actual people in fiction" equates to "people".
When it's people asking for it? I think it very much does mean that.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/07 23:04:37



They/them

 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
When it's people asking for it?

Yes.

Do you have children?
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






Ahh.. The Struggle Session continues.

Smudge, do you consider it unacceptable for any company anywhere to have literature and content that describes a fraternity?

I'm going to guess you're ok with Adeptus Sororitas existing for a reason something like "women aren't in dominance therefore they can have exclusive female spaces" , but when asking why GW may not publish content with a fraternity (for no other reason than they want to), do I mistake that the argument becomes that "since males have dominance it is unacceptable for them to have an exclusionary space" ?

Or am I off base with the philosophical foundations of your view?
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




 Bosskelot wrote:
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.


And an Exalt for YOU my good sir/madam/person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 RegularGuy wrote:
Ahh.. The Struggle Session continues.

Smudge, do you consider it unacceptable for any company anywhere to have literature and content that describes a fraternity?

I'm going to guess you're ok with Adeptus Sororitas existing for a reason something like "women aren't in dominance therefore they can have exclusive female spaces" , but when asking why GW may not publish content with a fraternity (for no other reason than they want to), do I mistake that the argument becomes that "since males have dominance it is unacceptable for them to have an exclusionary space" ?

Or am I off base with the philosophical foundations of your view?


Oh great you again. Lets go back and re-live the sheer wonder inducing posts of your recent past in this thread alone:

1: Here are weird pictures of women with big muscles!
2. I don't see color or religion, so I don't feel bigotry exists!
3. The ONLY way to create a good society is to WORK hard, because those boot straps don't pull themselves up! But don't worry, I don't see race, so the reason you are failing is because you are lazy.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/07 23:21:52


 
   
Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






There's no tradition, backwards law or cultural quirk that has SM be a male only organisation though just a passage that indicates the Emperor was either not as good at science as he claimed or he was a huge misogynist that saw women as weak.
They aren't only male because the Imperial Creed decrees it to be so. They aren't only male because their culture says so, the Imperium only cares about human life not sex/gender. They aren't only male because the Lex Imperialis decrees it.
   
Made in gb
Walking Dead Wraithlord






 Gert wrote:
Then why are you posting the words? You don't think you're contributing to the discussion and don't think anyone cares. If you actually think that then why get involved in the first place?
You came in and took a stance then when people disagreed with you more more they agreed you've decided the whole world is against you and nothing you say matters.
I'm trying to understand what your position actually is because all I can see is someone who had their opinion challenged and didn't like that people disagreed with them, continued posting in the discussion and then leaves acting like the whole thing was beneath them in the first place.

And for someone who doesn't want politics in their hobby you use a heck of a lot of buzz words and phrases used by right-wing click-baiters dude.


I said "mean words" in regards to personal insults people fling around.. why you would purposefully misconstrue such an obvious point is beyond me. People aren't stupid..
My opinion is my own I don't really have a cause other then resist politicizing every sphere of life space... and making everything conform to some arbitrary quota. But so nice of you to equate my opinion to "right wing click baiter". That's obvious demonstration you don't intend to interact with me in good faith and choose veiled insults and undermining to conduct yourself. That's on you though but don't think people are so thick they don't see through this whole pantomime. ​

I'm sorry did I start this thread or discussion or demands? Perhaps people shouldn't bandwagon activism and disguise it as "hobby discussion"?
So just No. ​

Plenty of reasons were given. Logical, good reasons as well as attempts at honest discussions. One guy even asked in a very articulate mythological way how you would measure and prove that this idea works. How do you know if its successful? There is no answer to give because to those who ijack this its not about improving/preserving anything anything. Its about appealing to peoples "feelings" and destroy something that somehow is seen as their political enemy..

All boys SM = Bad
If you disagree = Biggot.

That's it. That's is 90% the entire 25+ pages of discussion..
That's is virtually all that is being said. People faff around and try their hardest to disguise this with veiled loaded questions and misrepresentation, but incessance that is the crux of the whole thing. No amount of dressing up will take away from this. ​And people see through this.

Just look at the posts above me and the high fiving.. Its so transparent.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
 Bosskelot wrote:
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.


And an Exalt for YOU my good sir/madam/person.



This is exactly what I mean.

Boy SM = Bad
You disagree = Biggot

How can you debate with this?
This is not logic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/07 23:38:10


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 BertBert wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
When it's people asking for it?

Yes.
So, just to get this straight - you're not even denying that you value *fictional words* over the injustices occurring to *real people*?

In which case, how am I misrepresenting you?

Do you have children?
I don't see any reason why that could possibly be relevant. You make your own assumptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 RegularGuy wrote:
Ahh.. The Struggle Session continues.

Smudge, do you consider it unacceptable for any company anywhere to have literature and content that describes a fraternity?
When that fraternity exists only because of hamfisted exclusionary fiction written several decades ago for no real reason? That's definitely not an acceptable reason at all.

And especially so when it's that company's flagship faction.

I'm going to guess you're ok with Adeptus Sororitas existing for a reason something like "women aren't in dominance therefore they can have exclusive female spaces" , but when asking why GW may not publish content with a fraternity (for no other reason than they want to), do I mistake that the argument becomes that "since males have dominance it is unacceptable for them to have an exclusionary space" ?
Are the Sororitas the flagship faction of GW?
I didn't think so.

If the flagship faction wasn't mono-gender, I wouldn't be complaining. But here we are.

Or am I off base with the philosophical foundations of your view?
Yes, you are.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/07 23:28:49



They/them

 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, just to get this straight - you're not even denying that you value *fictional words* over the injustices occurring to *real people*?


Nope that's not it, but by all means, keep trying. I'm sure you'll get there eventually.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/07 23:30:13


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






That's interesting. There's a lot of your own personal assumptions that don't align to my perspectives there. But I'm interested to understand if the reason no one has been able to answer your question is that you have constructed your premises such that there can be no answer (which then opens the question as to why you are asking except as operations of a Struggle Session), but perhaps I apprehend you wrong.

So if you could answer the question, under what circumstances would you find it acceptable for to GW to publish and maintain content that includes exploration of the experience of a fraternity? I think your standard so far is that if one person doesn't like them publishing and maintaining content exploring the experience of a fraternity, then that sand castle must be kicked over, that thinking seems to me as it would lead to a lot of kicked over sand castles. Surely that's not the objective. So do I correctly understand why this particular literary exploration of the concept of fraternity must come to an end in your view, and does that apply to all literature in your mind, for the reasons I conjecture? Or do I have the philosophy wrong?
   
Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






@Argive
Didn't say you used mean words chief, what I said was if you genuinely believed you had nothing to contribute why did you bother contributing?
And I also didn't compare your opinion to right-wing click-bait. I just pointed out the irony of someone claiming they don't want politics in their hobby and then using terms frequented by those on right wing talk shows and forums.
As for the people who put forward "great arguments", the only ones I've seen are when people say get the rest of the stuff done first then do more Marine stuff and I agree with that. Simulations and surveys can only account for so much and in the end action has to be taken to see if change will have any meaningful effect.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/07 23:33:30


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 Argive wrote:
My opinion is my own I don't really have a cause other then resist politicizing every sphere of life space...
But including women isn't political. Dunno why you seem to think this is political.
and making everything conform to some arbitrary quota.
Including women isn't a quota. If I was to try and fill a quota, I'd be asking for perfect 50% representation.
But so nice of you to equate my opinion to "right wing click baiter". That's obvious demonstration you don't intend to interact with me in good faith and choose veiled insults and undermining to conduct yourself.
Like the same way that you use veiled insults and tarnish everyone pro-women Astartes as some kind of culture warrior or activist? That's in good faith?
That's on you though but don't think people are so thick they don't see through this whole pantomime.
I think people are very aware where the pantomime lies

Perhaps people shouldn't bandwagon activism and disguise it as "hobby discussion"?
Asking for women's representation isn't activism, and it is very much still hobby discussion, despite your efforts to paint it as something it's not.
Plenty of reasons were given. Logical, good reasons as well as attempts at honest discussions.
Like?
One guy even asked in a very articulate mythological way how you would measure and prove that this idea works.
... articulate mythological way? What on earth are you referring to?
Its about appealing to peoples "feelings" and destroy something that somehow is seen as their political enemy..
Sorry, are you suggesting that we *shouldn't* care about people's feelings?

All boys SM = Bad
If you disagree = Biggot.
It's more like "flagship faction being exclusive = bad", and that could change if anyone could come up with a reason why it should be exclusive without needing to use the lore as a crutch.

Sell me on why the lore needs to stay the same. Sell me on why Space Marines being all men is so vital. Sell me on why women weren't allowed to be Space Marines in the lore.

That's is virtually all that is being said. People faff around and try their hardest to disguise this with veiled loaded questions and misrepresentation, but incessance that is the crux of the whole thing. No amount of dressing up will take away from this. ​And people see through this.

Just look at the posts above me and the high fiving.. Its so transparent.
You wrote that all with a straight face, didn't you?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BertBert wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, just to get this straight - you're not even denying that you value *fictional words* over the injustices occurring to *real people*?


Nope that's not it, but by all means, keep trying. I'm sure you'll get there eventually.
So spell it out for me. Tell me why real people's calls for representation mean less than fictional lore about magic space juice.

You've got all night to formulate something - I'm sure you can manage that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/07 23:37:53



They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






Spoiler:
 RegularGuy wrote:
.
So if you could answer the question, under what circumstances would you find it acceptable for to GW to publish and maintain content that includes exploration of the experience of a fraternity? I think your standard so far is that if one person doesn't like them publishing and maintaining content exploring the experience of a fraternity, then that sand castle must be kicked over, that thinking seems to me as it would lead to a lot of kicked over sand castles. Surely that's not the objective. So do I correctly understand why this particular literary exploration of the concept of fraternity must come to an end in your view, and does that apply to all literature in your mind, for the reasons I conjecture? Or do I have the philosophy wrong?

If there was SM religious brotherhood bound by the laws of their order not to allow women in the ranks but were noted as an outlier faction AND there were the generic SM who weren't restricted by sex then I would have 0 issues with that. Well maybe not 0 but less than with "women can't be SM cos made up pseudoscience".
If your vision of 40k relies so heavily on SM being male only, then IMO that's a poor way to value the setting.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/07 23:43:28


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 RegularGuy wrote:
That's interesting. There's a lot of your own personal assumptions that don't align to my perspectives there. But I'm interested to understand if the reason no one has been able to answer your question is that you have constructed your premises such that there can be no answer (which then opens the question as to why you are asking except as operations of a Struggle Session), but perhaps I apprehend you wrong.
I mean, what premises have I constructed?
You shouldn't need fictional rules to justify why those rules exist in the first place. First, you need to tell me why those fictional rules are in place before you can defend them.

So, I ask again - why are there restrictions on who can and cannot be Space Marines?

So if you could answer the question, under what circumstances would you find it acceptable for to GW to publish and maintain content that includes exploration of the experience of a fraternity?
I did. In circumstances where that faction is not the majority face of the company, and that them being a fraternity is designed from the very core to be a part of their factional identity.

I would do this by establishing mechanical effects wherein where one unit died, others became enraged or altered by their fraternal brethren being damaged. I would have them embrace concepts such as the Sacred Band of Thebes, for example. I would do this by ensuring a collective monolithic factional identity that always reflected that sense of fraternity - the Custodes are the closest that come to this, because their factional identity is much more coherent than what the Space Marines are, and don't dominate the face of all GW media.

Space Marines do not meet those circumstances.
So do I correctly understand why this particular literary exploration of the concept of fraternity must come to an end in your view, and does that apply to all literature in your mind, for the reasons I conjecture?
You misunderstand. I am not opposed to the simple concept of "the fraternity". I am opposed to "the fraternity" being the flagship faction (by a severely long margin), and for that faction to woefully squander the fraternity concept to the point where it literally isn't part of their core identity.

Space Marines are not bound to the concept of being men, because it forms such a tiny, superficial part of their factional identity. Space Marines fill the role of being "the faceless customisable faction", and in that vein, artificially creating limitations on who they can and can't be runs directly counter to their design philosophy. They are also the flagship faction, probably because of their status as customisable icons, and regardless of if they even *did* live up to the design philosophy of being all male, a mono-gender faction should not be the flagship faction at all.
Or do I have the philosophy wrong?
Yes, you do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
If there was SM religious brotherhood bound by the laws of their order not to allow women in the ranks but were noted as an outlier faction AND there were the generic SM who weren't restricted by sex then I would have 0 issues with that. Well maybe not 0 but less than with "women can't be SM cos made up pseudoscience".
Pretty much. Because Space Marines cover so much territory and themes in the setting, them being these pious warrior monks that eschew women simply doesn't fit with Chapters like the Raptors, or Blood Angels, or Space Wolves, or Carcharadons, or Imperial Fists, or Raven Guard, or Iron Hands, or really anyone beyond maybe the Dark Angels and Black Templars.
If your vision of 40k relies so heavily on SM being male only, then IMO that's a poor way to value the setting.
I've raised this several times. Why is people's enjoyment of 40k contingent on women not being Space Marines?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/07 23:50:05



They/them

 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So spell it out for me.

I have tried several times and yet you fail to see what I'm getting at. And that's the sad thing about all of this, I see your position and (in assuming it's genuine) I can sympathise with it to some extent. It's just that there is this massive flaw in your initial premise and you seem incapable or unwilling to even consider it. It's a shame, really. Have a good night either way
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 BertBert wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So spell it out for me.

I have tried several times and yet you fail to see what I'm getting at.
No, you haven't. You always fall short of the final hurdle. You always leave it at this "the fiction means more than real people's feelings", and never go further.

Spell out for me why fictional rules, invented to justify a lack of sales, are even close to the importance of real people feeling excluded because of those fictional rules?


They/them

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






 Gert wrote:

If there was SM religious brotherhood bound by the laws of their order not to allow women in the ranks but were noted as an outlier faction AND there were the generic SM who weren't restricted by sex then I would have 0 issues with that. Well maybe not 0 but less than with "women can't be SM cos made up pseudoscience".
If your vision of 40k relies so heavily on SM being male only, then IMO that's a poor way to value the setting.

Well perhaps the connotations of your last comment is what Argive is getting at in terms of the way we are treating each other in this thread.

It so happens that I don't particularly care if GW ultimately adds female marines, though if they do I hope they do it with plausible and good writing, which isn't always the case in acquiescence to political activism.

Yet rather than try to understand what my perspective is as part of a real conversation and understanding here, I think we're falling into a trap (all too common today) of assuming and asserting the worst about people at a sign of disagreement. Being unable to search for or concede any validity in different opinions. Dismissing someone as unworthy of consideration if they have a different opinion.

I want to challenge my own perception that this thread is really nothing other than a Struggle Session with no possible outcome to the discourse other than "There is no valid reason not to Affirm Female Space Marines or you are a bad person" .

Now I think you were courteous to answer my question which I appreciate. If I read your response correctly, as long as a male fraternity is an outlier (why religious? All the empire is religious no?) that's ok. It just can't be explored by GW as a dominant faction. Yes?

And that's what I'd like to understand. Is it not the real world application of revolutionary liberation that demands the fiction can not have a major male fraternity? Can you better explain why GW may not explore the experiences of sorority, fraternity, and a mixture (Sororitas, Marines, and guard) in their body of content? Do I understand correctly that responding to modern perceptions of power dynamics and revolutionary liberation are the primary driver why GW must alter it's creative portfolio? Or is it something else?

In particular, if it's not that, why is it so important for fans of GW asserting female space marines to assert and suggest the worst about anyone who might not think the change is absolutely necessary for GW to commit to?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




U.k

 Graphite wrote:
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.


Like wise. It’s my fluff for female marines in my chapter and fits the lore perfectly well. Marines are douches.
   
Made in gb
Walking Dead Wraithlord






 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
 Argive wrote:
My opinion is my own I don't really have a cause other then resist politicizing every sphere of life space...
But including women isn't political. Dunno why you seem to think this is political.
and making everything conform to some arbitrary quota.
Including women isn't a quota. If I was to try and fill a quota, I'd be asking for perfect 50% representation.
But so nice of you to equate my opinion to "right wing click baiter". That's obvious demonstration you don't intend to interact with me in good faith and choose veiled insults and undermining to conduct yourself.
Like the same way that you use veiled insults and tarnish everyone pro-women Astartes as some kind of culture warrior or activist? That's in good faith?
That's on you though but don't think people are so thick they don't see through this whole pantomime.
I think people are very aware where the pantomime lies

Perhaps people shouldn't bandwagon activism and disguise it as "hobby discussion"?
Asking for women's representation isn't activism, and it is very much still hobby discussion, despite your efforts to paint it as something it's not.
Plenty of reasons were given. Logical, good reasons as well as attempts at honest discussions.
Like?
One guy even asked in a very articulate mythological way how you would measure and prove that this idea works.
... articulate mythological way? What on earth are you referring to?
Its about appealing to peoples "feelings" and destroy something that somehow is seen as their political enemy..
Sorry, are you suggesting that we *shouldn't* care about people's feelings?

All boys SM = Bad
If you disagree = Biggot.
It's more like "flagship faction being exclusive = bad", and that could change if anyone could come up with a reason why it should be exclusive without needing to use the lore as a crutch.

Sell me on why the lore needs to stay the same. Sell me on why Space Marines being all men is so vital. Sell me on why women weren't allowed to be Space Marines in the lore.

That's is virtually all that is being said. People faff around and try their hardest to disguise this with veiled loaded questions and misrepresentation, but incessance that is the crux of the whole thing. No amount of dressing up will take away from this. ​And people see through this.

Just look at the posts above me and the high fiving.. Its so transparent.
You wrote that all with a straight face, didn't you?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BertBert wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, just to get this straight - you're not even denying that you value *fictional words* over the injustices occurring to *real people*?


Nope that's not it, but by all means, keep trying. I'm sure you'll get there eventually.
So spell it out for me. Tell me why real people's calls for representation mean less than fictional lore about magic space juice.

You've got all night to formulate something - I'm sure you can manage that.


It is political because in essence you are saying there can be no "boys only" club/ space in 40k because that's inherently bad. That is very political. Forcing inclusion into a male only space is dismantling men only space. Please admit this is what inclusion means if we accept the fact that SM boys club is a thing you want to attack?
Take responsibility.

This I would equate to activism. As you are attempting to force hobby change in order to enact societal change.

I meant I don't support preying on peoples feelings and emotions to achieve a political goal.

No quite frankly I don't think I need to care about peoples feelings if I dislike those people on a personal level because they actively try to insult me or damage me or the things and people I care about. Its okey to dislike someone. I am in no way obligated to love everyone
And yeah I did write it with a straight face. Maybe the fact you having issues with retorting because its obviously true?

Here is why SM remaining as men make sense to me personally :

Like the fact men are more suited to soldiering due to innate biological advantages?
Like the fact fiction is derived from history and real world stuff - Aka biology plays a big part in-universe logic?
Its only logical this would be enhanced by future tech?
Building a gene-hanced super soldiers uses human DNA so its obvious it would be easier to work with a male framework more efficient?
Removing this aspect would ruin the suspension of disbelief as its no longer based on anything so why even bother with using humans? Why not just have flesh blobs cloned? ?
People like continuity and familiarity
The concept of fraternity is important to some people.


These are just the reasons I give off top of my head and make logical sense to ME. I don't speak for anyone else
Truth I have no idea what the creators chose as their reasoning, maybe it was just to sell toys to boys? Maybe it was just the idea of fraternity which spoke to millions of male customers across generations? You'd have to ask them the creators.

But lets face it, no reason will ever be good enough.
Why do you think you can be an arbiter on what is a "good enough reason"?

It is the way it is because creators said so. And people have been enjoying this for 30 years. This should be the only reason that really matters. If you don't like what's being created don't consume the product. Why hurt yourself by consuming something that offends your feelings?

Now -

Why is making SOB and guard as the "poster faction" of 40k and feature NEW female characters and models a worse option then changing SM? That way we can kill many birds with one stone as well as measure engagement and prove this is an issue? The answer seems to be because changing SM and gender swapping is easier.

Why risk poor implementation with GW rolling out new waves of SM. Nobody wants more sm.. ?

Is there any faction or unit that can be "male only ?" for whatever reason a.ka notion of fraternity?

If they change the lore so that SM are all dudes because of "religion" will that be ok? Why is this lore ok but not other lore ?

I also disagree completely that there is any significant gatekeeping based on SM existing. That's a Ludacris position.
This is demonstrably false claim as we have plenty women in the hobby yourself included? Poor hygiene and social awkwardness ill keep both men and women out of the hobby..

Also please stop misrepresenting people that they don't want women in the hobby (which de facto insinuates they are sexist bigots).
Its very unfair.

This message was edited 15 times. Last update was at 2021/06/08 01:16:48


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




U.k

“Like the fact men are more suited to soldiering due to innate biological advantages?
Like the fact fiction is derived from history and real world stuff - Aka biology plays a big part in-universe logic?
Its only logical this would be enhanced by future tech?
Building a gene-hanced super soldiers uses human DNA so its obvious it would be easier to work with a male framework more efficient?
Removing this aspect would ruin the suspension of disbelief as its no longer based on anything so why even bother with using humans? Why not just have flesh blobs cloned?”

Men are more suited? Are soldiers exclusivley male? NO. throughout history have soldiers been exclusively male? NO. Dows biology play apart? In made up science fiction stuff, no, not often. It plays no part in any other 40K fluff and doesn’t in this. If you understood even basic biology then you would know that DNA re-coding and hormone therapies (which is what marine creation is supposed to be about) has no bearing on gender. If you start with prepubescent specimens and alter the dna and hormones then you kind take gender out of the equation entirely. So it’s only OBVIOUS if you don’t understand science. So I would argue by including such half baked pseudo science that doesn’t even stand up to even high school education level scrutiny you are ruining suspense soon of disbelief more.

I’m not calling you a bigot or telling you that you are just wrong because I disagree without, I’m pointing out that your logic is flawed. Your reasoning doesn’t add up because you are starting from a falsehood and using it as the basis for your whole rationale. So when you use words like “logically” it doesn’t enhance your argument. It just reinforces the false presumptions it’s all based on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 RegularGuy wrote:
That's interesting. There's a lot of your own personal assumptions that don't align to my perspectives there. But I'm interested to understand if the reason no one has been able to answer your question is that you have constructed your premises such that there can be no answer (which then opens the question as to why you are asking except as operations of a Struggle Session), but perhaps I apprehend you wrong.

So if you could answer the question, under what circumstances would you find it acceptable for to GW to publish and maintain content that includes exploration of the experience of a fraternity? I think your standard so far is that if one person doesn't like them publishing and maintaining content exploring the experience of a fraternity, then that sand castle must be kicked over, that thinking seems to me as it would lead to a lot of kicked over sand castles. Surely that's not the objective. So do I correctly understand why this particular literary exploration of the concept of fraternity must come to an end in your view, and does that apply to all literature in your mind, for the reasons I conjecture? Or do I have the philosophy wrong?


Fraternity can be explored, by all means. No one is arguing that it can’t. But excluding women from the key faction, the poster boy group, because of 13 words printed 32 years ago is not the same thing. Yes they call each other “brother” but that’s about it. Some are passed off as warrior monks but not most chapters. What else about them is a fraternity, what also about the tales of them has the fact that they are all men be so important? Nothing really.

A fraternity can be a group of men that happen to shared the same experience, but if you make it that that experience could only be shared by men and that if somehow having a woman there would lessen it then that’s not cool. I’m not arguing for going back and, say, rewriting the Rynns world fluff to have female marines there. Perfectly happy for that story only to have had male survivors and then go on the journey and fight to survive. But maybe next time they wrote a story of a small band of marines fighting to the death but pulling through against all the odds, Chuck a her or she in the story here and there. Would that ruin the fraternity of the tale for you? Would it be less of a story for you if that happened?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/08 01:13:11


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






Andykp wrote:
e
A fraternity can be a group of men that happen to shared the same experience, but if you make it that that experience could only be shared by men and that if somehow having a woman there would lessen it then that’s not cool. I’m not arguing for going back and, say, rewriting the Rynns world fluff to have female marines there. Perfectly happy for that story only to have had male survivors and then go on the journey and fight to survive. But maybe next time they wrote a story of a small band of marines fighting to the death but pulling through against all the odds, Chuck a her or she in the story here and there. Would that ruin the fraternity of the tale for you? Would it be less of a story for you if that happened?


I don't have any particular interest in fraternity tales, but I don't have a problem with them existing, even as a flag ship faction of a popular game. My own Imperial Guard regiment has female membership and fluff describing how the culture of their world translates to their presence and roles in the regiment. I think mixed gender forces can make excellent stories, but I also think non integrated forces can make interesting stories such as astartes and sororitas and and both are equall valid bodies of fiction to exist.

Being open to all these bodies of literature existing, I find it kind of an alien idea that the existence of astartes in fiction as a fraternity is deemed as abhorrent and that negative motives and character need be imputed to any who don't see it as essential for GW to dismantle their literature simply because it happened to feature a seemingly male fraternal order to date.

To the question of "why can't GW add female space marines" I say you certainly could though it would be easy to do poorly. But then there's the companion question of "=Must GW add female space marines?" and to this I do not see a compelling reason why they must either. Sororitas, Guard, and Astartes give them three excellent literary vehicles for exploring different gender mix experiences in 40k if they want to. And that doesn't seem to be the issue. What seems to be the issue, and I'm trying to get some insight here, is that the existence of a popular fraternal faction in literature is intolerable to some, to the extent that people feel the need to be abusive to those who either like or see nothing wrong with it's existence.

   
Made in gb
Walking Dead Wraithlord






Andykp wrote:
“Like the fact men are more suited to soldiering due to innate biological advantages?
Like the fact fiction is derived from history and real world stuff - Aka biology plays a big part in-universe logic?
Its only logical this would be enhanced by future tech?
Building a gene-hanced super soldiers uses human DNA so its obvious it would be easier to work with a male framework more efficient?
Removing this aspect would ruin the suspension of disbelief as its no longer based on anything so why even bother with using humans? Why not just have flesh blobs cloned?”

Men are more suited? Are soldiers exclusivley male? NO. throughout history have soldiers been exclusively male? NO. Dows biology play apart? In made up science fiction stuff, no, not often. It plays no part in any other 40K fluff and doesn’t in this. If you understood even basic biology then you would know that DNA re-coding and hormone therapies (which is what marine creation is supposed to be about) has no bearing on gender. If you start with prepubescent specimens and alter the dna and hormones then you kind take gender out of the equation entirely. So it’s only OBVIOUS if you don’t understand science. So I would argue by including such half baked pseudo science that doesn’t even stand up to even high school education level scrutiny you are ruining suspense soon of disbelief more.

I’m not calling you a bigot or telling you that you are just wrong because I disagree without, I’m pointing out that your logic is flawed. Your reasoning doesn’t add up because you are starting from a falsehood and using it as the basis for your whole rationale. So when you use words like “logically” it doesn’t enhance your argument. It just reinforces the false presumptions it’s all based on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 RegularGuy wrote:
That's interesting. There's a lot of your own personal assumptions that don't align to my perspectives there. But I'm interested to understand if the reason no one has been able to answer your question is that you have constructed your premises such that there can be no answer (which then opens the question as to why you are asking except as operations of a Struggle Session), but perhaps I apprehend you wrong.

So if you could answer the question, under what circumstances would you find it acceptable for to GW to publish and maintain content that includes exploration of the experience of a fraternity? I think your standard so far is that if one person doesn't like them publishing and maintaining content exploring the experience of a fraternity, then that sand castle must be kicked over, that thinking seems to me as it would lead to a lot of kicked over sand castles. Surely that's not the objective. So do I correctly understand why this particular literary exploration of the concept of fraternity must come to an end in your view, and does that apply to all literature in your mind, for the reasons I conjecture? Or do I have the philosophy wrong?


Fraternity can be explored, by all means. No one is arguing that it can’t. But excluding women from the key faction, the poster boy group, because of 13 words printed 32 years ago is not the same thing. Yes they call each other “brother” but that’s about it. Some are passed off as warrior monks but not most chapters. What else about them is a fraternity, what also about the tales of them has the fact that they are all men be so important? Nothing really.

A fraternity can be a group of men that happen to shared the same experience, but if you make it that that experience could only be shared by men and that if somehow having a woman there would lessen it then that’s not cool. I’m not arguing for going back and, say, rewriting the Rynns world fluff to have female marines there. Perfectly happy for that story only to have had male survivors and then go on the journey and fight to survive. But maybe next time they wrote a story of a small band of marines fighting to the death but pulling through against all the odds, Chuck a her or she in the story here and there. Would that ruin the fraternity of the tale for you? Would it be less of a story for you if that happened?


Every single historically relevant professional army that we have records of had male only hard core front line combatants. Fact.

Have soldiers been historically vastly majorly Male? yes overwhelmingly. fact.

Why is that?

Phalgists, legionaries, hoplites, red coats and the poor saps who landed on the beaches of Normandy so we can have our freedom to have this debate. You know full well I mean front line soldiering, where physicality matters and is of paramount importance making the difference between life and death, vicotry and defeat, a win of the IOM or anahilation. Hand to hand combat plays a big part in 40k. 99% of men fail special forces training and as far as I know only one woman ever made it to green berrete graduation. Why? Its the same reason we have male and female sports categories. It therefore makes perfect sense you would base any gene therapy we might remotely conceive of now, on the male framework. And the fact there is one outlier is not suffiecient enough for me to suddenly base the whole thing to take into account outliers.. Now some rando a one off character?

You're not arguing with me. You are arguing with objective truth and facts.

I get this really doesn't sit well with people, and they have hard time accepting some of these facts because it doesn't fit the narrative. So i understand why they hate this argument. But just because you cant accept this on a personal level, it does not make a poor reason or a poor argument.

Feel free to say that in the future, science mumbo jumbo would magically make this disparity irrelevant cant really argue with that... And if someone wants to make that fiction they are welcome to it. I will check it out if its good I will get on board.

But that's is not the fiction we have.

So don't call me false or say my logic is flawed.
You have exposed yourself quite clearly as having weak counter points.

My position is that changing SM isn't the path to encouraging women into 40k. I'm personally not convinced there are cohorts of female players who cant play 40k coz SM are a dude only faction.. But people seem to vehemently argue that it is so. So there maybe something to it.. I admit I don't know. Unless GW has some solid market research I dont think they know..

Therefore I think dedicating 40k to SOB/ female guard characters themes and art over the next 5-10 years and doing market research and getting stats should yield the results people claim they want if the issue is that SM are only guys and they are poster faction. So just change the poster faction.. Seems logical and also encourages non SM armies. Win win.

But I'm not going to take anyone's word for it.
I oppose making changes for personal/political reasons on a whim potentially having far reaching, unpredicted and negative consequences for the hobby. Because I care about my hobby. I think that's a perfectly valid stance ?

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/06/08 02:27:23


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 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.



This is actually kind of funny, considering the thread subject matter.

When Mass Effect 1 launched in 2007, there was zero advertising for female Shepard. There wasn't even a mention of her. The only reference I ever found in the lead up to launch was an off handed comment by a developer during a random floor run through (and he was not playing the female character).

Not only did the male Shepard receive all of the marketing, in both ME1 and ME2 the default appearance had better skin texture and whatnot, so the male version even had an obvious preference.

In ME2 launched three years later in 2010, it was still much the same except the cat was out of the bag as far as the female option, so she received a little more discussion--or rather, was actually acknowledged to exist. But as said before, male Shepard received the vast majority of marketing and the 'iconic' look had more attention devoted to it.

It wasn't until ME3 launched in 2012 (five years after ME1...) that femShep received any sort of marketing and was given an iconic look. And did BioWare have an artist's vision of how the character would look? Reasoning behind each and every detail? No, femShep's final, iconic appearance was decided through a poll between blonde, brunette, or redhead.

Circling back to this discussion, the only thing that matters to Games Workshop is money. The only way to get female representation is to ask for it (a la AoS and Necromunda) and for it to be worth more in their eyes. The fact that GW seems to be worried that large section of their players may revolt if they happen to see a girl in advertising really says a lot about the hobby, sadly.

And like everything else about the game--models, lore, whatever--if GW ever gets around to doing it, it's purely for money. It's not the purity of the background, it's not decades of models--it's the profitability of the IP and what they think players will buy (and not necessarily what they'll enjoy).
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Background
Go to: