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.
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?
...
So I think the response one should anticipate here, is that much as we see now with testosterone treatment, growth hormone, and steroids as used in masculinzation for women either as treatment for gender disphoria or take in competitive body building, one could conceive of a future technology developing artificial organs to produce these hormone (which certainly have to be involved in development of astartes) and grafting them into women. This would necessarily lead to giant growth and muscularization /masculinization of the woman receiving the treatment just as we see in women who take testosterone now. Women biologically are less primed for muscular growth than most men, so they would either need higher levels of testosterone than male astartes, or likely need genetic reprogramming to be more responsive to testosterone. To be authentic to what an astartes is and what would be needed to create a female marine, the person who underwent it would likely be scarcely recognizable as female without cosmetic features , which we do see happen within the womens body building community. (Which someone sadly mocked earlier)
It would be a challenge to determine WHY Cawl (the only one likely capable) would deem this an important use of resources since the imperium does not seem to be concerned with 21st century liberation politics and when they can already generate primaris marines without the investment, but a very skilled writer might come up with something persuasive.
But none of that responds to the question of why GW should be compelled to alter their successful literary product if they like it as it is, nor why anyone should be demonized for thinking the product is acceptable as it is.
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.
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.
There are already female frontline fighters in the Guard. In fact, there are entire regiments of women. And before you say that they're just garrison forces or don't actually fight, not only is there lore that that's incorrect in both codexes and Black Library books (including both recent and older sources like Gaunt's Ghosts or Ciaphas Cain) but one of the main reason for mixed regiments are when two or more regiments of mono-gender soldiers are so devastated--by combat--that they're combined.
So citing historical sources is irrelevant when in-setting any disparity between men and women is insignificant.
Is your non-flawed logic that women are more than capable of fighting and dying in the Guard lore, but female space marines are an impossibility because of real life history that the setting gives zero gaks about? Or maybe it's easier to ignore those tidbits of fluff because women aren't represented in the AM on the tabletop either, and you can continue to use "men big strong" as an excuse for your obvious, exhaustive preference of no girls allowed.
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.
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.
There are already female frontline fighters in the Guard. In fact, there are entire regiments of women. And before you say that they're just garrison forces or don't actually fight, not only is there lore that that's incorrect in both codexes and Black Library books (including both recent and older sources like Gaunt's Ghosts or Ciaphas Cain) but one of the main reason for mixed regiments are when two or more regiments of mono-gender soldiers are so devastated--by combat--that they're combined.
So citing historical sources is irrelevant when in-setting any disparity between men and women is insignificant.
Is your non-flawed logic that women are more than capable of fighting and dying in the Guard lore, but female space marines are an impossibility because of real life history that the setting gives zero gaks about? Or maybe it's easier to ignore those tidbits of fluff because women aren't represented in the AM on the tabletop either, and you can continue to use "men big strong" as an excuse for your obvious, exhaustive preference of no girls allowed.
What on earth are you on about? I was responding to a post trying to undermine my personal reason and opinion on why SM make sense to use male frame work as a template fort heir genhance mumbo jumbo science....
I never mentioned guard at all or dispute guard has female soldiers or that female soldiers exist...
I just stated rather obviously that physically males are more suited for the role of being close combat front line shock troops where every advantage matters and is enhanced to extremes yielding the best potential results on investment..
If that doesn't matter, Why does anything matter? why do we need humans in the setting at all? Why not flesh blobs? Do humans in 40k not work in the same way humans work as we understand it ? Why do they work the same in every other aspect apart from this biological aspect? History is mentioned a lot in 40k and ive seen dozens of refences to Romans etc. so there seems to be a connection.
You'd have to ask the creators on why this is. I have my own made up by me explanations where I rationalised this... Cant speak for everyone else.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/08 03:55:27
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 ? "
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.
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.
There are already female frontline fighters in the Guard. In fact, there are entire regiments of women. And before you say that they're just garrison forces or don't actually fight, not only is there lore that that's incorrect in both codexes and Black Library books (including both recent and older sources like Gaunt's Ghosts or Ciaphas Cain) but one of the main reason for mixed regiments are when two or more regiments of mono-gender soldiers are so devastated--by combat--that they're combined.
So citing historical sources is irrelevant when in-setting any disparity between men and women is insignificant.
Is your non-flawed logic that women are more than capable of fighting and dying in the Guard lore, but female space marines are an impossibility because of real life history that the setting gives zero gaks about? Or maybe it's easier to ignore those tidbits of fluff because women aren't represented in the AM on the tabletop either, and you can continue to use "men big strong" as an excuse for your obvious, exhaustive preference of no girls allowed.
What he's probably getting at is that statistically the majority of women were at a significant physical disadvantage before technological warfare increased the opportunities for women to provide combat support. As my wife and other women who've had to fight or compete with men, the statistical size and strength differences are real for the humans of today. In 40k enough time may have gone by particularly on worlds like catachan for selection to favor continuation of women as strong as any men today (we should observe to be accurate that representation of women is not new in AM visavis Catachan). Certainly amongst the ogryn the females would likely mash modern men like bugs. I suspect few voices are questioning why there isn't greater female ogryn representation, but shouldn't there be?
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.
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.
There are already female frontline fighters in the Guard. In fact, there are entire regiments of women. And before you say that they're just garrison forces or don't actually fight, not only is there lore that that's incorrect in both codexes and Black Library books (including both recent and older sources like Gaunt's Ghosts or Ciaphas Cain) but one of the main reason for mixed regiments are when two or more regiments of mono-gender soldiers are so devastated--by combat--that they're combined.
So citing historical sources is irrelevant when in-setting any disparity between men and women is insignificant.
Is your non-flawed logic that women are more than capable of fighting and dying in the Guard lore, but female space marines are an impossibility because of real life history that the setting gives zero gaks about? Or maybe it's easier to ignore those tidbits of fluff because women aren't represented in the AM on the tabletop either, and you can continue to use "men big strong" as an excuse for your obvious, exhaustive preference of no girls allowed.
What he's probably getting at is that statistically the majority of women were at a significant physical disadvantage before technological warfare increased the opportunities for women to provide combat support. As my wife and other women who've had to fight or compete with men, the statistical size and strength differences are real for the humans of today. In 40k enough time may have gone by particularly on worlds like catachan for selection to favor continuation of women as strong as any men today (we should observe to be accurate that representation of women is not new in AM visavis Catachan). Certainly amongst the ogryn the females would likely mash modern men like bugs. I suspect few voices are questioning why there isn't greater female ogryn representation, but shouldn't there be?
More or less is what I meant. Yes. I think that's a fair summary. I was just focusing purely on the SM recruitment process and what kind of internal logic would drive that based on what I know about how humans work today.
I would love to see some literary work around the Dark Age of Technology exploring men of Iron and the actual reality of humanity in 40k setting. Perhaps there is room to explore how humans are in the future and if they are comparable to what we understand as base line humanity today (Seems to be the case currently) If their genetics are something completely different by that point to what we understand today. Could be a cool way of writing potential changes or introducing a new female chapter or something.
I havent thought about female ogryns.. I just keep imagening the Troll Hag from WHTW2 or the Supermutant from Fallout as a base line.
I forget the regiment name - But I recall there being a Regiment in "Legion" who are all genetic enhanced dudes and have a psychic link to their commanders who are all exclusively female.
That's a very interesting example of both Female and Male fraternities co-exsiting.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/08 04:12:30
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 ? "
RegularGuy wrote: ...much as we see now with testosterone treatment, growth hormone, and steroids as used in masculinzation for women either as treatment for gender disphoria or...
RegularGuy wrote: ...much as we see now with testosterone treatment ... as used in masculinzation for women ... as treatment for gender disphoria or...
Come again?
It was a compound sentence trying to get to too many things at once. I've offered the correct parsing for the part you appear to be interested in. I shouldn't think testosterone being administered for female masculinization should be surprising. Now what I didn't separate out clearly is the next segment which has to do with muscle mass sought by body builders. In that community, lawfully or not, there are those that will seek and use combinations of steroids, testosterone, and growth hormone to build muscle mass. The point being if you want to build 7 foot tall super strong humans capable of the things space marines are, these elements and their affects are almost certainly part of that transformation and sustainment.
Insectum7 wrote:I never asserted that lore can't change. I only assert that lore still requires handling with care, generally speaking.
And what part of adding women Space Marines would threaten that care? Why do women Space Marines in particular have such a pushback?
When people invest a bunch of money into something, and a company changes that thing out from under them, people get upset. Right? That should be obvious.
But of all the things to be upset by, women Space Marines?
Why?
Because
A: It can be seen as a culture war issue
B: It's an unnecessary change to very established lore because -
C: Lore-faithful representation is something that can happily be increased
I'm more of the opinion that increased gender representation can be achieved without lore changes, since female warriors of various types already exist in the lore, they just aren't as loftily promoted or even represented with the models.
Is it possible? Yes.
Is it practical? No. Not even close.
Why are people so avoidant to add women Space Marines that they're advocating for operations that would cost extravagant amounts and take years to even start being realised, and would still come nowhere near to tackling the massive cultural background Space Marines have accumulated? All to avoid a single word of lore changed, and a new headswap sprue?
GW pumped out Primaris fast enough. They shot the Genestealer Cults back into existence. GW altered the way that they engaged with customers and GW is constantly making new marketing material all the time. GW is plenty capable of backing off their hyper-marine-focus if they wanted to, and perfectly capable of providing more representation in areas that are not Space Marines.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But their identity isn't based on their lack of diversity. It's based on being super strong, super durable, super heroic supersoldiers. Them being men isn't something GW focus on in their fluff about them.
To you it's not important. To many it's not important. Apparently to a different many it IS considered important, for whatever reason. Space Marines being an honor-bound brotherhood of "warrior monks", steeped in tradition is also a valid way to view them. In fact I personally rather dislike the increased focus on "super-strong, super-durable" these days, hence my dislike of the 2W paradigm. I even dislike how much the "heroic" aspect has been pushed, and see them as terror troops often overkilling the civilian populations their meant to protect.
Insectum7 wrote:But the subject of the thread is fundamentally about representation. Exploring various ways to do that seems perfectly on topic.
Agreed. And I think I've explained why doing so via having to make thousands and thousands of pounds worth of factions, models, fiction and marketing is a tad harder than "anyone can become a Space Marine" and a headswap.
"Wah, it's too hard!" It's not too hard. There's a myriad of ways to go about it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Why is the lore more important than real human beings?
Because people have strong feelings about the lore itself too. It's just feelings on one side against feelings on the other side.
Imperial Human Factions and their Status of integration in the lore
Imperial Guard - integrated
Adeptus Mechanicus - integrated
Adeptus Arbites - integrated
Knight Households - integrated
Titan Legions - integrated
Imperial Navy - integrated
Officio Assassinorum - integrated
Inquisition - integrated
Sisters of Battle - all female (auxilliaries/supporting assets may be male)
Space Marines - all male (auxilliaries/supporting assets may be female)
Adeptus Custodes - all male? (imo should be integrated, female Custodes would be great)
Sisters of Silence - all female
^Imo this should be acceptable, lore wise
(model representation is currently unacceptable, imo, and there's just waaay too much focus on Space Marines)
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?
That probably depends on who you talk to and the context. Personally I think it's fine to treat people unfairly in fiction since it could be a form of satire or a way to make a greater point.
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.
^100% agree
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/08 08:07:46
RegularGuy wrote: ...much as we see now with testosterone treatment ... as used in masculinzation for women ... as treatment for gender disphoria or...
Come again?
It was a compound sentence trying to get to too many things at once. I've offered the correct parsing for the part you appear to be interested in. I shouldn't think testosterone being administered for female masculinization should be surprising. Now what I didn't separate out clearly is the next segment which has to do with muscle mass sought by body builders. In that community, lawfully or not, there are those that will seek and use combinations of steroids, testosterone, and growth hormone to build muscle mass. The point being if you want to build 7 foot tall super strong humans capable of the things space marines are, these elements and their affects are almost certainly part of that transformation and sustainment.
I hope that helps clarify
It still makes no sense. Most of marine processing is implants, the end result is so far removed from baseline humanity that the tiny differences between human male and female starting point would be unnoticeable. Neither human male nor female is going to be physically able to match an ork in melee or speed of an eldar.
I think that's exactly the point. It is not necessary to justify that female marine exists: Cawl changed the process and we know (even simply comparing to the 80', let's forget fourty thousand years in the future) that sex is a hell lotmore complicated than what dangling genitalia you get.
The burden of proof is not to justify it how and why the Primaris can be female (as said, it's not necessary to retcon the past lore).
Lore speaking, as far as I'm aware, they already canbe!
The process is different, and there is not mention (as far as I'm aware) that Primaris are male-only as the Firstborn (even if, asI said, I would have no issue with a general retcon: very masculine marine stays very masculine whatever they have between their legs)
So, it's not even a matter of changing the fluff.
Edit: and BTW, if you want to get biologically savvy, all Space Marine are dead. Their ribs are fused together and they can't breathe. Happy?
In a healthy society (ours, not 40k), you need to justify an exclusion, and not the other way around. In this specific case the only motivation for excluding female Astartes is to avoid changes because you (personally) have no problem with things as they are.
There are a lot of other societies and cultures that carefully avoided changes. They're all extinct of course, because that what happens when you can't evolve.
And it's pretty damning to have to say it out loud, since it is one of the forefront idea of 40k (that, and that change is evil: so whatever you do you're doomed).
Do I have to assume you're taking 40k at face value and equates civil liberties with the influence of Slaanesh, something bad in itself?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/08 09:05:50
I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it.
Yeah... the snarky comment to feel smart: so, do Marine retreat within their massive chests when in danger? Have marine lot of empty spaces in their chest? Do they collapse like the Transformer?
Because turtles are essentially empty: when they retreat in their shells they do exactly the same sound of a punctured tire. Marine have human anatomy and additional organs: as described "in the lore", they can't breathe. So, I'd already the lore is so important that we take it on face value, the lot is incoherent and inconsistent, so it's worthless to justify anything.
And that's only the most visible idiotic feature that biologically belong to Astartes. The less risible one is their mucus-based cocoon to hybernate: and that's saying something considering it's a slug feature?
You know what other feature slug have? Are hermafrodites... So, maybe Marine secretly pulled of a "Jurassic Park" and now all of the have genitalia for both male and female
(Damn, that's good for a homebrew chapter).
I mean, genetic degradation is really common so I guess you shouldn't have any issue with and entire chapter of hermafrodite marine, right?
And yet we're still discussing... And I'm really deeply sorry for all those who can't yet get how ridiculous those justification are to extend and keep prejudice directly from fourty thousand years before to a literal post-human faction.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/08 09:35:08
I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it.
Insectum7 wrote: ^"Edit: and BTW, if you want to get biologically savvy, all Space Marine are dead. Their ribs are fused together and they can't breathe. Happy?"
*raises hand* How does a turtle breathe?
“The turtle body plan differs markedly from that of other vertebrates and serves as a model system for studying structural and developmental evolution. Incorporation of the ribs into the turtle shell negates the costal movements that effect lung ventilation in other air-breathing amniotes. Instead, turtles have a unique abdominal-muscle-based ventilatory apparatus whose evolutionary origins have remained mysterious. Here we show through broadly comparative anatomical and histological analyses that an early member of the turtle stem lineage has several turtle-specific ventilation characters: rigid ribcage, inferred loss of intercostal muscles and osteological correlates of the primary expiratory muscle. Our results suggest that the ventilation mechanism of turtles evolved through a division of labour between the ribs and muscles of the trunk in which the abdominal muscles took on the primary ventilatory function, whereas the broadened ribs became the primary means of stabilizing the trunk. These changes occurred approximately 50 million years before the evolution of the fully ossified shell.”
See actual science.
As for the science of marines having to be men because men are better at soldiering and growing muscle. Well that all falls down on two main points. One, the process of transformation into a marine starts before puberty, so hormone levels and muscle mass etc are irrelevant. It hasn’t started yet. At that age the levels are roughly the same, the strengths and muscle mass are the same. All you need to keep them level is some testosterone and some growth hormone. Not a big expenditure of resources when you think about what goes into making a marine. (To get the gene seed for a new chapter you need a thousand slaves to produce it who are sustained to adulthood and then destroyed, held in suspended animation). And two, even using flawed GW futuristic pseudo science, once a marine is developing all there hormonal needs are either artificially introduced or provided by implanted glands. If you read the actual process, testosterone or male hormones are not mentioned once.
So any logic based on this assumption is flawed and false. Stating the word fact after a sentence doesn’t actually make it true. Fact.
The other factions are integrated. Let’s look at that, again.
Actual female miniatures for guard?? Few. Very few. A new head or two in the yet to be released kit for Cadians and a special character/limited edition model here and there. Fact. Maybe better represented in the literature but this is a game and that’s only a small part of the hobby.
Sisters of battle. If anyone thinks that a faction comprising all women (except for the men in it) is great for inclusion then look at that faction and the representation it gives. Boob armour, forests and even high bloody heels on some of them. It’s represented so much from the male gaze and sexualised that it probably puts off as a many women as it attracts. Compare this to the modern approach of stormcast. The armour and loom is deliberately feminine with out being sexualised. The models make the women look as powerful and intimidating as the male models but still definitely women without being eye candy for the boys.
Eldar are better but kind of the liberal lefties of the 40K world so that’s no surprise.
If you want to use real science to justify sci-fi science then try and understand real science a little bit first. And dressing up the fact that girls are banned in the spacemarine club as a fraternity then you are just using that term to hide misogyny. Show me one bit a text where the marines being all male is integral to the story. Where it actually matters. One. Challenge you. One story where it being an all male gang actually matters.
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?
Regarding how I interact with certain posters:
Spoiler:
I've been in this thread for a while now and have been called a Marxist (dumb and is consistently used wrong), activist (I mean sort of?), SJW (meaningless term coined by people who hate minorities) and a bunch of other stuff I don't remember. I've seen the same arguments trotted out week after week and still I come back to put my points back in for the hundredth time. I do this to challenge those who put out arguments like "women don't deserve representation" or "the community should actively gatekeep non-conservatives out of the game" that, unlike women/LGBT+/non-white hobbyists, actually do damage the 40k community. Like most people here I follow hobbyists on social media and a good portion of them are women/LGBT+/non-white. The constant barrage of harassment and threats they get makes me sick to my core, and this isn't just bots or one faceless wacko, there are concentrated and coordinated efforts to attack these people because they dared to challenge the status quo of 40k that conservatives and right wingers find so appealing, which in itself is ironic because they're the ones being mocked by 40k in the first place. Representation in the flagship faction of 40k might do absolutely nothing to solve some of the problems in the 40k community but we'll never know if we don't try.
Regarding the stuff about SM:
The majority of SM don't worship the Emperor as a God but rather a revered grandfather figure, like the Primarchs being their fathers. They serve Him because they are indoctrinated throughout their mortal childhood and then with further hypno-therapy to believe He is mankind's greatest hope for the future. Now they have chaplains and pray but not to the extent that they wider Imperium does. Chaplains look for signs of weakness, Chaos corruption and dereliction of duty (Commissars but super buff). SM as a whole find the Ecclesiarchy distasteful and full of self serving sycophants, mostly because it is, but also for their perversion of the Emperors vision for humanity. Its a pretty widespread view among SM that mortals are trash and ruin pretty much everything. If the Heresy hadn't happened many SM were to become administrator's or rulers of worlds within the Imperium.
Now as for male only factions. I don't partiticualry hate the idea when it's balanced to other factions that are better sources of representation. For example, AoS Fyreslayers are all male minis but balanced alongside the numerous Aelf factions, Stormcast, and Chaos factions, there is enough of a balance between male/female/non-binary options that one Duardin faction being all dudes isn't an issue. When we go into their lore there are women Fyreslayers but they occupy the role of mothers but also defenders of the home and hearth so its not flat out "only men are Warriors" kind of deal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/08 10:09:19
I mean, they are humanoid, and male-proportioned because their sole purpose is to carry guns and fight monsters. They don't have a purpose beyond this - they aren't meant to breed. Would a female space marine ultimately end up looking exactly the same as a regular space marine - built to carry big guns and fight monsters? There's no need (canonically) for space marines to be made curvier. They are supposed to be built like a brick outhouse. They would ultimately look like female body builders - IE like incredibly muscly men with more feminine faces, and no discernable "femininity" at all once they have clothes on.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
They do have gender, they call each other brother, use male pronouns, the whole thing. But you are correct, female marines would just have less beefy heads than malerines.
To all the people making "Women are inferior to males at soldering" arguments. I suggest you sign on the dotted line, and tell that gak to the brave women I served with in the best 12 years of my life, in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Alaska, Budapest, Somalia, Australia, and New York. You all sound like the exact same thing, pathetic incels that think women are inferior. You have ZERO idea what it means to be a warfighter. To be the one pulling the trigger, stitching the wound closed, closing the tourniquet, or calling down the fire. You are none of you good enough to stand with the female warfighters I have served alongside. Women are inferior to men? Men have 1% of the struggles that women do. And women consistently set the bar higher and higher. I thank GOD that we have women in the military today. It's what makes us the strongest military in the world.
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.
I mean we kind of had that argument trotted out earlier - that 40k has been and should be a safe space for poor mistreated men who experience rejection and therefore allowing women to invade their sacred hobby would be telling them that they are not welcome.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
some bloke wrote: IE like incredibly muscly men with more feminine faces
Youd be amazed to learn that this is what the whole fething argument is about. The idea of a little piece of plastic being included in a space marine sprue with a slightly more feminine facial features, maybe a ponytail, but maybe not even that.
Honestly GW did a fantastic job with the sisters of battle line, which is why so many people online bitch and moan about it - when you get right down to it the distinctions between the sexes on a tiny model, especially when they're like screaming in a battle-rage aren't all that noticeable, and people just look at the new sisters and go 'WTF theyre so MANLY???!?!?" because of GW's usual level of hero-scaling, which theyve always done on every model they've made (bigger hands, bigger heads, bigger weapons, shorter limbs, squatter bodies than true-scale humans) and because they didnt model their female miniatures to have gigantic 6" diameter anime eyes and poofy pouty supermodel lips, which is typically what you see on a miniature when it's supposed to make it super obvious from tabletop distance that you're looking at a lady.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/08 11:47:29
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
RegularGuy wrote: 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.
Including women isn't political activism.
RegularGuy wrote: I don't have any particular interest in fraternity tales, but I don't have a problem with them existing
Nor do I.
even as a flag ship faction of a popular game.
But here's the disagreement. As the flagship, you must surely be aware that the flagship sets the bar for what is considered "most iconic" in the setting. If the flagship is all male, that tacitly suggests that all-male is the standard.
There are solutions to this, ranging from the vastly expensive and self-defeating "we kill our most iconic faction and hope that by injecting massive amounts into other factions, they make the costs back", to "we change 13 words of lore and release a new head sprue".
Again, if you want to have fraternity tales, why do you need Space Marines to do it. Why not the Custodes? If all you want is for non-integrated forces to tell interesting stories, does it matter if the faction doing it isn't front and centre?
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.
That's not what the issue is. As I've literally just said, Custodes being all male is far more acceptable, because their design lends more strongly to that, and they aren't disproportionately thrust into the limelight.
The issue isn't that Space Marines are men alone. The issue is that Space Marines are all-male and are the flagship faction.
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.
Other than there being no good reason why there aren't any in the first place?
Surely what we must be needing to answer first is "why can't women be Space Marines in the first place"?
Sororitas, Guard, and Astartes give them three excellent literary vehicles for exploring different gender mix experiences in 40k if they want to.
Alternatively, why not Sororitas, Space Marines and Custodes? All three of them then occupy a "heroic heavily armoured elite warrior" trope, with Space Marines being the middle ground in both power and design.
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.
No, that's not the issue, and I've explained repeatedly how it's not the case.
Fraternities can exist. But when fraternities are presented so clearly head and shoulders above everything else, there's a problem. Similarly, fraternities need to be integral to the factional design of the fiction. Space Marines have moved past that design, and are now more defined by their cultural trappings and customisation, something that being a fraternity actively hampers.
Custodes as a warrior fraternity would be acceptable.
RegularGuy wrote: To be authentic to what an astartes is and what would be needed to create a female marine, the person who underwent it would likely be scarcely recognizable as female without cosmetic features , which we do see happen within the womens body building community. (Which someone sadly mocked earlier)
You don't need to necessarily look feminine to still be a woman though. And besides, if we want to talk about how Space Marines shouldn't look recognisable after their enhancement, should that not also apply to the men too? Space Marines should either have recognisable human features, both male and female, or should look entirely inhuman. I don't mind either way, but I'm not going to settle for "they can look like men, but not women".
It would be a challenge to determine WHY Cawl (the only one likely capable) would deem this an important use of resources since the imperium does not seem to be concerned with 21st century liberation politics and when they can already generate primaris marines without the investment, but a very skilled writer might come up with something persuasive.
Featuring women isn't "liberation politics", it's women existing. What part of that is hard to understand?
Firstly, there's no reason that, within the setting, there even needs to be a restriction on who can become Astartes, so that's the first flaw. The second is that why on earth wouldn't Cawl want to expand the amount of soldiers at their disposal? The Imperium doesn't care about gender, so it clearly wouldn't care about chucking women into power armour, giving them all the good stuff male Astartes get, and throwing them at the enemy. It's the grimdarkness of the far future - the Imperium doesn't care what gender you are, only that you fight and die for the Emperor. Why on earth wouldn't they want to get as many Space Marines out there as possible? In fact, that really should have been Cawl's first thought - "how can I make more Space Marines", instead of "how can I enhance the Space Marines I already have"?
And the best part - there's literally no reason Cawl shouldn't be able to, because it's all made up arbitrary rules anyway!
But none of that responds to the question of why GW should be compelled to alter their successful literary product if they like it as it is, nor why anyone should be demonized for thinking the product is acceptable as it is.
Is GW's successful literary product successful because it is unrepresentative?
@Argive:
Spoiler:
Argive wrote: 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.
But that's not what anyone said. Having an all-male faction is acceptable: if it serves a strong narrative design purpose and if it's not disproportionally overmarketed.
The issue is that Space Marines are the flagship faction, and have no real reason to be all-male other than some hamfisted reasons decades ago.
And I repeat - including women isn't even political in the first place.
This I would equate to activism. As you are attempting to force hobby change in order to enact societal change.
What society change? Women existing isn't societal change.
I meant I don't support preying on peoples feelings and emotions to achieve a political goal.
Including women isn't 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
You don't need to love everyone. You don't even need to like them. But self admittedly saying that you care more about made up words than another person? That's a whole new level of apathy and selfishness.
Women wanting representation isn't actively insulting or damaging, is it?
And yeah I did write it with a straight face. Maybe the fact you having issues with retorting because its obviously true?
Obviously true? Sure thing, champ.
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?
This is a fictional universe where sentient fungi exist. Do you think fungi have innate biological advantages that would make them the killing machines that Orks are?
Like the fact fiction is derived from history and real world stuff - Aka biology plays a big part in-universe logic?
What part of having a third lung, acidic spit, and "gene seed" are derived from "real world biology"?
Also, on the "real world biology" front, you *do* know that humans are so much more alike than they are different that there's no real reason that the magical space serum shouldn't work on one and not the other, right? Like, I'm not exactly sure how up to date you are on modern medical science, but yeah - humans don't exactly have massive sexual dimorphism.
Its only logical this would be enhanced by future tech?
> logical > future tech
Pick one.
Building a gene-hanced super soldiers uses human DNA so its obvious it would be easier to work with a male framework more efficient?
Uh, no, because as I mentioned, humans aren't massively distinct between sexes. Also, the gulf between Astartes and regular human is so much more vast than the difference between male and female that it's not even funny.
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? ?
Hang on, just so I get this clear - you can suspend your disbelief that there's a magical super soldier serum that can turn humans into some of the most advanced killing machines imaginable, so they can go off and fight sentient walking fungi and literal space daemons using space magic... but you can't believe that the magical soldier serum could be used on a woman?
Also, if women are so inferior for fighting, why do women exist in the Imperial Guard?
People like continuity and familiarity
Yes, they do. That's why women want representation.
The concept of fraternity is important to some people.
Cool. Play Custodes then - the faction that *actually* uses the fraternity concept well.
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
And I'll address your points as if they were only yours.
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"?
Nah, if I see a good reason, I'll say it. So far, the only good one has been "but the concept of the fraternity!" - but I've explained plenty of times how that concept is done better by other factions, and how Space Marines have seemed to abandon that style.
It is the way it is because creators said so.
That's the weakest artistic excuse possible - and that's coming from one.
And people have been enjoying this for 30 years.
That's not an argument. That's how your product dies from a lack of outreach.
If you don't like what's being created don't consume the product. Why hurt yourself by consuming something that offends your feelings?
As I said - that's not a good idea when you're trying to appeal to a wider audience.
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.
Yes - because it *is* so much easier, and because there's no good reason for all-male SM anyway.
Why risk poor implementation with GW rolling out new waves of SM. Nobody wants more sm.. ?
Adding a new head sprue isn't adding more Space Marines.
Is there any faction or unit that can be "male only ?" for whatever reason a.ka notion of fraternity?
Custodes.
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 then have to ask why they felt the need to change the lore to make Space Marines all male. What was the reason behind it? Why is that the artistic design choice you chose?
I also disagree completely that there is any significant gatekeeping based on SM existing. That's a Ludacris position.
Then you're just as incorrect as your spelling of ludicrous.
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..
It's demonstrably accurate, coming from the testimonies of women who feel excluded in the hobby.
Maybe you should read some of them.
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.
You know what's also unfair? Ignoring the testimony of women who feel excluded because people care more about made up words than they do about actual humans.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But of all the things to be upset by, women Space Marines?
Why?
Because A: It can be seen as a culture war issue
That doesn't mean that it is though. Including women isn't a political issue. The existence of women isn't a political topic.
B: It's an unnecessary change to very established lore because - C: Lore-faithful representation is something that can happily be increased
You say unnecessary, but I've explained repeatedly how it very much *is*.
Allow me to go through it again: - Firstly, there is no good reason that Space Marines should be all male in the first place. It's based on outdated consumer information, and is more "hamfisted" than simply letting women be Astartes. - Secondly, Space Marines are most well known now as the faction of customisability and player freedoms. No other faction does this quite like Space Marines do. Therefore, having a restriction on who can be Space Marines (especially when that restriction is of *human beings*) violates this freedom. - Thirdly, lore-faithful is a fancy way of saying that you care more about made-up words than real people. I'll talk about this more. - Fourth "lore-faithful representation" can only be increased by investing countless thousands into every other faction, and actively sabotaging the commercial success and marketing power that Space Marines have, something which, to a business like GW, would be near-suicidal. Space Marines are iconic, and while other factions do need love, Space Marines boast such a strong lead over every other faction that I'm not confident that you'd see any *actual* representative gains for many many years. - Finally, this still assumes that there's a good reason for Space Marines to stay all-male by factional design - but is there? If you want an all-male faction, play Custodes, am I right? Space Marines being "all male" as a core design trait has fled the nest - GW don't repeat the whole "only men can have the implant" spiel any more, and Space Marines are now more defined by what historical culture they ape from than their "warrior monk" design. Why do they need to be all male in the first place?
I'm more of the opinion that increased gender representation can be achieved without lore changes, since female warriors of various types already exist in the lore, they just aren't as loftily promoted or even represented with the models.
Is it possible? Yes.
Is it practical? No. Not even close. Why are people so avoidant to add women Space Marines that they're advocating for operations that would cost extravagant amounts and take years to even start being realised, and would still come nowhere near to tackling the massive cultural background Space Marines have accumulated? All to avoid a single word of lore changed, and a new headswap sprue?
GW pumped out Primaris fast enough. They shot the Genestealer Cults back into existence. GW altered the way that they engaged with customers and GW is constantly making new marketing material all the time. GW is plenty capable of backing off their hyper-marine-focus if they wanted to, and perfectly capable of providing more representation in areas that are not Space Marines.
I don't doubt they're capable (even if we're ignoring that revamping nearly every other faction to reach Space Marine levels of marketing is vastly more difficult than whatever else they've done in the past) - I doubt that they even would, because they'd be killing their cash cow. You bring up marketing material, but nearly all of it is Marine-centric.
Also, I mention again - my proposal is "add a sprue and change 13 words". It's not like I'm asking much, is it?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But their identity isn't based on their lack of diversity. It's based on being super strong, super durable, super heroic supersoldiers. Them being men isn't something GW focus on in their fluff about them.
To you it's not important. To many it's not important. Apparently to a different many it IS considered important, for whatever reason.
But GW don't. And if other people are seeing things that GW aren't putting out there, how is that any different from headcanon?
The point stands - GW haven't emphasised the "warrior monk" part of the Space Marine design in a helluva long time. Calling that an integral part of their design isn't a fact any more.
Space Marines being an honor-bound brotherhood of "warrior monks", steeped in tradition is also a valid way to view them.
Valid? Yes, just as valid as seeing them as heroic superheroes, or tacticool advanced tech super soldiers. Equally as valid as "everyone should be able to be a Space Marines", yes. So let's perhaps drop this idea that defending exclusivity by what is now basically headcanon is somehow supposed to trump actual inequalities of representation?
Insectum7 wrote:But the subject of the thread is fundamentally about representation. Exploring various ways to do that seems perfectly on topic.
Agreed. And I think I've explained why doing so via having to make thousands and thousands of pounds worth of factions, models, fiction and marketing is a tad harder than "anyone can become a Space Marine" and a headswap.
"Wah, it's too hard!" It's not too hard.
It really is. I'm proposing a headswap and 13 words changed. You're proposing a mass remarketing of 40k, the killing of GW's cash cow, and injecting thousands into other factions, to the point where they'd need Horus Heresy-length series', new subfactions, massively expanded model lines, third party media, and marketing. Sorry, but you're frankly naive if you don't see the massive difference in scale here.
There's a myriad of ways to go about it.
There are a myriad of ways, some vastly more simple than others. I want to know why the lore is such sacred ground that you won't touch my proposal with a barge pole because of it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Why is the lore more important than real human beings?
Because people have strong feelings about the lore itself too.
Oh boo hoo. 'The mean ess-jay-dubs don't prostrate themselves in front of these fictional words like I do?' You genuinely mean to tell me that it's anywhere close to equivalent?
"Sorry that you're excluded, but these made up words just mean more to me than you do, darling."
You can have strong feelings about the lore, no-one says that's wrong - but when push comes to shove, and you prioritise made up words that even GW don't care all that much for instead of your fellow human beings, what kind of a person does that make you?
It's just feelings on one side against feelings on the other side.
What you omit is that one side's feelings are based on worship of fictional material pulled from a writer's ass, and the other side's feelings are based on real life exclusion and unfairness.
They're not equivalent at all.
Imperial Human Factions and their Status of integration in the lore Imperial Guard - integrated Adeptus Mechanicus - integrated Adeptus Arbites - integrated Knight Households - integrated Titan Legions - integrated Imperial Navy - integrated Officio Assassinorum - integrated Inquisition - integrated Sisters of Battle - all female (auxilliaries/supporting assets may be male) Space Marines - all male (auxilliaries/supporting assets may be female) Adeptus Custodes - all male? (imo should be integrated, female Custodes would be great) Sisters of Silence - all female
^Imo this should be acceptable, lore wise (model representation is currently unacceptable, imo, and there's just waaay too much focus on Space Marines)
Yeah, they're all integrated, and that's great. But: - None of these come anywhere near the marketing power of Space Marines - Why are Space Marines also not integrated in the first place? If it's the whole "warrior monk/fraternity" thing you're after, Custodes fit that better. Why are you okay changing the lore about the Custodes, the faction that might actually fit that aesthetic and design better, than Space Marines, the faction defined by their customisation and player freedom? Why is women Space Marines the point of contention here?
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?
That probably depends on who you talk to and the context.
I'm asking you. Should fiction ever come before treating real humans with respect and fairness?
Personally I think it's fine to treat people unfairly in fiction since it could be a form of satire or a way to make a greater point.
If GW are doing it here, then they're doing a goddamn awful job of it.
I think more importantly, I should return to why Space Marines - if GW want to discuss fraternity, they can use the Custodes, a faction much more inclined towards that design choice. Why are Space Marines, the faction now defined by their player freedom and customisation, the vector for this?
Sex? No. Gender? It varies. I'd say that if I were to fully rewrite 40k myself, Space Marines would be agender, taking on both male and female recruits, and ending up with dehumanised meat puppets by the end that had no discernible gender or gender identity in the same way that their bolters do. They wouldn't be referred to as "sons" or "daughters" or "brothers", but simply as "Astartes".
But, I recognise that this is a step too far for many. My counter-proposal would be that it varies in Chapter culture what gender the Chapter's Marines take. In more "conservative" Chapters, such as the Black Templars and Dark Angels, all Marines, regardless of their assigned gender at birth, would take on masculine pronouns. In other Chapters, such as the Ultramarines and Salamanders, they might keep their birth pronouns, as a link to their previous life before they were made into Astartes. GW could even create new Chapters, such as the Grey Valkyries Chapter, who all adopt female pronouns, regardless of their assigned gender at birth. And you could even have Chapters who are particularly uncaring, like the Minotaurs or Iron Hands, who reject all gendered terms, and only use "Astartes" as a pronoun.
This comes to my main point that the whole "warrior monk" part of Space Marines is not universal, and GW would be better served embracing the existing diversity in what Space Marines represent, a diversity which they themselves have encouraged and allowed to flourish.
I mean, they are humanoid, and male-proportioned because their sole purpose is to carry guns and fight monsters. They don't have a purpose beyond this - they aren't meant to breed.
I hear that, and that makes me wonder why they even then use male pronouns? If their only purpose is to carry guns and fight monsters, why have a gender at all?
Would a female space marine ultimately end up looking exactly the same as a regular space marine - built to carry big guns and fight monsters? There's no need (canonically) for space marines to be made curvier.
No-one's suggesting changing anything other than the head. Marines wouldn't suddenly have boobplate.
They are supposed to be built like a brick outhouse. They would ultimately look like female body builders - IE like incredibly muscly men with more feminine faces, and no discernable "femininity" at all once they have clothes on.
Agreed. But they could still have female pronouns, yes?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: To all the people making "Women are inferior to males at soldering" arguments. I suggest you sign on the dotted line, and tell that gak to the brave women I served with in the best 12 years of my life, in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Alaska, Budapest, Somalia, Australia, and New York. You all sound like the exact same thing, pathetic incels that think women are inferior. You have ZERO idea what it means to be a warfighter. To be the one pulling the trigger, stitching the wound closed, closing the tourniquet, or calling down the fire. You are none of you good enough to stand with the female warfighters I have served alongside. Women are inferior to men? Men have 1% of the struggles that women do. And women consistently set the bar higher and higher. I thank GOD that we have women in the military today. It's what makes us the strongest military in the world.
Aye.
And that's before we even get into how it literally doesn't even matter, because of Magic Space Super Soldier Serum Juice being completely arbitrary and biological reasons are completely pointless because we don't have Magic Space Super Soldier Serum Juice, or walking sentient fungi, or space daemons, or psychic powers.
Biological arguments fall apart the moment Magic Space Super Soldier Serum Juice enters the room.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/08 12:07:10
I hear that, and that makes me wonder why they even then use male pronouns? If their only purpose is to carry guns and fight monsters, why have a gender at all?
I thoroughly recommend reading the Space Captain Smith books by Toby Frost (who wrote Straken). It features the Morlock race, which is basically just the Predator race. They are asexual amphibians who love war, fighting, feuds, beheading, blades, fighting and war. and also classical music.
There is a line in it, which I cannot remember exactly, but the gist of it is:
"If your race is asexual, why does everyone refer to you as "he"?"
"That is a mystery. It is true that we do not have different genders, but for some reason humans always refer to us as male. But enough talk of emotional things - let us find the enemy and slay them!" - after which he scratches his arse, belches and walks off.
Agreed. But they could still have female pronouns, yes?
Why can't they now? I mean, I'll be honest - does it matter? A fictional race of fictional super-soldiers with fictional reasons why their fictional magic space super soldier serum juice only affects men; if the only difference would be a minute difference to the head, then why not add a little fiction to say that there is no difference i ntheir facial features and boom, you can call them all she, her, female and whatnot.
I mean, just google "Women with high testosterone" and you'll see that their facial features are very masculine. Imagine what magic space super soldier serum juice would do to someone. There's not going to be much of a difference between them. Chances are they will have their heads specifically shaped to fit into the power armour helmets properly. These aren't people with lives to go back to after the war ends, they are production-line super soldiers.
So, why not just say "these marines are female", and make it canon that they look exactly the same?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: To all the people making "Women are inferior to males at soldering" arguments. I suggest you sign on the dotted line, and tell that gak to the brave women I served with in the best 12 years of my life, in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Alaska, Budapest, Somalia, Australia, and New York. You all sound like the exact same thing, pathetic incels that think women are inferior. You have ZERO idea what it means to be a warfighter. To be the one pulling the trigger, stitching the wound closed, closing the tourniquet, or calling down the fire. You are none of you good enough to stand with the female warfighters I have served alongside. Women are inferior to men? Men have 1% of the struggles that women do. And women consistently set the bar higher and higher. I thank GOD that we have women in the military today. It's what makes us the strongest military in the world.
The bravery of women in the military is not at question. With a regard exclusively to physical strength, the facts stand that the physical requirements for joining the army have had to be relaxed because most women could not achieve them, and those that did suffered injuries as a result.
The study found: 'We know that women are built differently to men — higher fat mass, less muscle mass, less cardio output, which leads to greater/quicker energy deficit than men and they have to work harder to achieve the same output.'
But as others have said, the idea that a fictional super-soldier made from war drugs and technology is in any way impacted by their gender is just silly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/08 12:54:45
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
I hear that, and that makes me wonder why they even then use male pronouns? If their only purpose is to carry guns and fight monsters, why have a gender at all?
I thoroughly recommend reading the Space Captain Smith books by Toby Frost (who wrote Straken). It features the Morlock race, which is basically just the Predator race. They are asexual amphibians who love war, fighting, feuds, beheading, blades, fighting and war. and also classical music.
There is a line in it, which I cannot remember exactly, but the gist of it is:
"If your race is asexual, why does everyone refer to you as "he"?"
"That is a mystery. It is true that we do not have different genders, but for some reason humans always refer to us as male. But enough talk of emotional things - let us find the enemy and slay them!" - after which he scratches his arse, belches and walks off.
Agreed. But they could still have female pronouns, yes?
Why can't they now? I mean, I'll be honest - does it matter? A fictional race of fictional super-soldiers with fictional reasons why their fictional magic space super soldier serum juice only affects men; if the only difference would be a minute difference to the head, then why not add a little fiction to say that there is no difference i ntheir facial features and boom, you can call them all she, her, female and whatnot.
I mean, just google "Women with high testosterone" and you'll see that their facial features are very masculine. Imagine what magic space super soldier serum juice would do to someone. There's not going to be much of a difference between them. Chances are they will have their heads specifically shaped to fit into the power armour helmets properly. These aren't people with lives to go back to after the war ends, they are production-line super soldiers.
So, why not just say "these marines are female", and make it canon that they look exactly the same?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: To all the people making "Women are inferior to males at soldering" arguments. I suggest you sign on the dotted line, and tell that gak to the brave women I served with in the best 12 years of my life, in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Alaska, Budapest, Somalia, Australia, and New York. You all sound like the exact same thing, pathetic incels that think women are inferior. You have ZERO idea what it means to be a warfighter. To be the one pulling the trigger, stitching the wound closed, closing the tourniquet, or calling down the fire. You are none of you good enough to stand with the female warfighters I have served alongside. Women are inferior to men? Men have 1% of the struggles that women do. And women consistently set the bar higher and higher. I thank GOD that we have women in the military today. It's what makes us the strongest military in the world.
The bravery of women in the military is not at question. With a regard exclusively to physical strength, the facts stand that the physical requirements for joining the army have had to be relaxed because most women could not achieve them, and those that did suffered injuries as a result.
The study found: 'We know that women are built differently to men — higher fat mass, less muscle mass, less cardio output, which leads to greater/quicker energy deficit than men and they have to work harder to achieve the same output.'
But as others have said, the idea that a fictional super-soldier made from war drugs and technology is in any way impacted by their gender is just silly.
I'm sorry, please don't try to pass off your sexism as "Science" as if it proves your stance. I would rather you just came out and flatly said you main opinion, that you think women are inferior. Why are you afraid of saying what you clearly believe.
Also, I will bet money you never served, and couldn't pass an APFT if you had 2 months to train.
As for the science of marines having to be men because men are better at soldiering and growing muscle. Well that all falls down on two main points. One, the process of transformation into a marine starts before puberty, so hormone levels and muscle mass etc are irrelevant. It hasn’t started yet. At that age the levels are roughly the same, the strengths and muscle mass are the same. All you need to keep them level is some testosterone and some growth hormone. Not a big expenditure of resources when you think about what goes into making a marine. (To get the gene seed for a new chapter you need a thousand slaves to produce it who are sustained to adulthood and then destroyed, held in suspended animation). And two, even using flawed GW futuristic pseudo science, once a marine is developing all there hormonal needs are either artificially introduced or provided by implanted glands. If you read the actual process, testosterone or male hormones are not mentioned once.
So any logic based on this assumption is flawed and false.
Does it seem like pseudoscience to you to envision that to grow humans to be 7 feet tall that growth hormone would be required? That for such aggression and musculature testosterone would be required? I mean, you could always suggest Magic and that the warp is used to mafic space marines I supposed. At any rate, sticking to a more science fiction grounding, I think it's important you mention the process starts before puberty. We should notice that women who want to transition to being men are generally encouraged to take puberty blockers and begin testosterone treatment. The results are suppression if female traits and rise of masculine traits. Perhaps the reason you don't see female space marines is that the process is effective at allowing young women to transition as trans men, and that is why are all called brother. There's really nothing inherently flawed or inherently false about extending our understanding from science into science fiction to conceive of what might be happening realistically. At least nothing more so than asserting magic.
If you want to use real science to justify sci-fi science then try and understand real science a little bit first. And dressing up the fact that girls are banned in the spacemarine club as a fraternity then you are just using that term to hide misogyny. Show me one bit a text where the marines being all male is integral to the story. Where it actually matters. One. Challenge you. One story where it being an all male gang actually matters.
This is an example of where this thread gets abusive. It's hyperbolic and not in spirit with the decorum we are supposed to show on dakka dakka. I think we need to recognize the political component that keeps working it way into the discussion. Its when the discussion starts moving beyond the discussion of the ups/downs and ins/outs of female space marines into assertions of wickedness or "woman hating" as you out it. In the political sphere, we can recognize that there's a revolutionary movement that holds amongst it's core tenets that revolution must be brought to perceived strongholds of power, and within that school of thought any "boys club" as you put it is deemed an evil oppressive structure that must be dismantled. I think I am able to affirm based on the comments that this is the primary motivation for a lot of posters. Now though that's political at its source it isn't so much having that opinion openly is a problem, it's when you want to bring the forms of Struggle Session rhetoric and demonization of people who don't see the revolutionary program as necessary that it's really becoming toxic. When one begins to assert negative character and aspersions on people who don't share your value, shouldn't that be considered over the line on dakka?
For those who aren't part of the identity political revolutionary movement, it isn't apparent that GW must dismantle or rewrite astartes simply because it happens to be a popular male faction. It does not follow that it is an evil heresy that must be purged, and it seems queer that anyone who does not share the identity politics perspective has to be misconstrued, mocked, demonized, and so on. I recognize these are tactics commended in revolutionary identity politics "war on patriarchy" etc. But while a revolutionary may feel necessary to "engage on all fronts" in their culture war, couldn't dakka be a place where like Christmas trenches in wwI, we can stop demonizing each other for a bit, and talk without turning everything into an idealistic crusade where the heretic must be purged?
Or perhaps, like the imperium, it is simply not acceptable for anyone to have ideas beyond the imperial truth, and only zealous denouncement of the heretic is the acceptable path?
I think it's a bit toxic, but perhaps its an unavoidably toxic world now. But at least do not be mystified when the zealous missionary declares their imperial truth, and people say "is this really necessary?" and likewise, when the revolutionary missionary breaks out the flamer, this should not be a surprise either. I just wish more people would recognize the toxicity of this path and try to resist the call and temptation to bring the abusive elements of the revolution here at the very least.
I hear that, and that makes me wonder why they even then use male pronouns? If their only purpose is to carry guns and fight monsters, why have a gender at all?
I thoroughly recommend reading the Space Captain Smith books by Toby Frost (who wrote Straken). It features the Morlock race, which is basically just the Predator race. They are asexual amphibians who love war, fighting, feuds, beheading, blades, fighting and war. and also classical music.
There is a line in it, which I cannot remember exactly, but the gist of it is:
"If your race is asexual, why does everyone refer to you as "he"?"
"That is a mystery. It is true that we do not have different genders, but for some reason humans always refer to us as male. But enough talk of emotional things - let us find the enemy and slay them!" - after which he scratches his arse, belches and walks off.
Agreed. But they could still have female pronouns, yes?
Why can't they now? I mean, I'll be honest - does it matter? A fictional race of fictional super-soldiers with fictional reasons why their fictional magic space super soldier serum juice only affects men; if the only difference would be a minute difference to the head, then why not add a little fiction to say that there is no difference i ntheir facial features and boom, you can call them all she, her, female and whatnot.
I mean, just google "Women with high testosterone" and you'll see that their facial features are very masculine. Imagine what magic space super soldier serum juice would do to someone. There's not going to be much of a difference between them. Chances are they will have their heads specifically shaped to fit into the power armour helmets properly. These aren't people with lives to go back to after the war ends, they are production-line super soldiers.
So, why not just say "these marines are female", and make it canon that they look exactly the same?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: To all the people making "Women are inferior to males at soldering" arguments. I suggest you sign on the dotted line, and tell that gak to the brave women I served with in the best 12 years of my life, in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Alaska, Budapest, Somalia, Australia, and New York. You all sound like the exact same thing, pathetic incels that think women are inferior. You have ZERO idea what it means to be a warfighter. To be the one pulling the trigger, stitching the wound closed, closing the tourniquet, or calling down the fire. You are none of you good enough to stand with the female warfighters I have served alongside. Women are inferior to men? Men have 1% of the struggles that women do. And women consistently set the bar higher and higher. I thank GOD that we have women in the military today. It's what makes us the strongest military in the world.
The bravery of women in the military is not at question. With a regard exclusively to physical strength, the facts stand that the physical requirements for joining the army have had to be relaxed because most women could not achieve them, and those that did suffered injuries as a result.
The study found: 'We know that women are built differently to men — higher fat mass, less muscle mass, less cardio output, which leads to greater/quicker energy deficit than men and they have to work harder to achieve the same output.'
But as others have said, the idea that a fictional super-soldier made from war drugs and technology is in any way impacted by their gender is just silly.
I'm sorry, please don't try to pass off your sexism as "Science" as if it proves your stance. I would rather you just came out and flatly said you main opinion, that you think women are inferior. Why are you afraid of saying what you clearly believe.
Also, I will bet money you never served, and couldn't pass an APFT if you had 2 months to train.
Firstly, it is science; a hypothesis proven through scientific method and data analysis.
Secondly, at great risk of causing this thread to become close, HOW DARE YOU? How dare you suppose for one minute that, by directing you to the scientific facts that women are, on average, physically weaker than men, that means that I think they are inferior? I am actually a strong believer in and incredibly outspoken about equality. I'll not make suppositions about your knowledge, not being presumptuous, but I will say that people can be equal without being the same.
And you're quite right. I have never served, and I am sufficiently unfit to be pretty certain that I'd not pass any physical tests. But that, my friend, is a personal attack and irrelevant, because I am not a marine. I am assuming that you yourself are a male, as you jumped in defence of your friend and not yourself, so I ask you: who did better in the APFT, which I gather is doing the most push-ups in 2 minutes, most sit ups in 2 minutes, and then a 2 mile run in the quickest time - you, or her? as two entirely random samples, which I have no way of knowing who was fitter?
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
As for the science of marines having to be men because men are better at soldiering and growing muscle. Well that all falls down on two main points. One, the process of transformation into a marine starts before puberty, so hormone levels and muscle mass etc are irrelevant. It hasn’t started yet. At that age the levels are roughly the same, the strengths and muscle mass are the same. All you need to keep them level is some testosterone and some growth hormone. Not a big expenditure of resources when you think about what goes into making a marine. (To get the gene seed for a new chapter you need a thousand slaves to produce it who are sustained to adulthood and then destroyed, held in suspended animation). And two, even using flawed GW futuristic pseudo science, once a marine is developing all there hormonal needs are either artificially introduced or provided by implanted glands. If you read the actual process, testosterone or male hormones are not mentioned once.
So any logic based on this assumption is flawed and false.
Does it seem like pseudoscience to you
yes. Yes, marine lore is HILARIOUS levels of pseudoscience. They have fused fething ribs. They READ peoples MINDS by EATING THEIR BRAINS. a subcategory of space marines has a "Mutation" that TRANSFORMS THEM INTO WEREWOLVES. that is one hell of a mutation, just an absolute banger right there.
None, absolutely zero of the traits marines are described to have are in any way based on any kind of real scientific understanding of biomechanics, it is 100% all stuff some layman thought of and said 'this sounds cool'.
It makes as much sense to exclude women from the lore of space marines as it does to exclude them from the lore of the Avengers.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
I hear that, and that makes me wonder why they even then use male pronouns? If their only purpose is to carry guns and fight monsters, why have a gender at all?
I thoroughly recommend reading the Space Captain Smith books by Toby Frost (who wrote Straken). It features the Morlock race, which is basically just the Predator race. They are asexual amphibians who love war, fighting, feuds, beheading, blades, fighting and war. and also classical music.
There is a line in it, which I cannot remember exactly, but the gist of it is:
"If your race is asexual, why does everyone refer to you as "he"?"
"That is a mystery. It is true that we do not have different genders, but for some reason humans always refer to us as male. But enough talk of emotional things - let us find the enemy and slay them!" - after which he scratches his arse, belches and walks off.
But Morlocks aren't human.
Space Marines, while perhaps better described as transhuman, definitely come from human cultures where we use certain gendered pronouns.
Sorry, but the "we don't know, we just do use them" doesn't work in this situation, especially when there could easily be Space Marine subcultures (like the Grey Valkyries Chapter I created for this example) who would rather use female pronouns.
Agreed. But they could still have female pronouns, yes?
Why can't they now?
Well, yeah. That's what I'm saying - why can't they?
I mean, I'll be honest - does it matter? A fictional race of fictional super-soldiers with fictional reasons why their fictional magic space super soldier serum juice only affects men; if the only difference would be a minute difference to the head, then why not add a little fiction to say that there is no difference i ntheir facial features and boom, you can call them all she, her, female and whatnot.
When that fictional race is a major part of a real life hobby, with real life people playing it, and finding real life enjoyment from it, yes, I think it does matter.
Or rather, does it matter if Space Marines were women? After all, a fictional race of fictional super-soldiers with fictional science.
As for the last part about "there's no difference between facial features" - that's cool and all, if they didn't have very obviously male-coded heads. If they had androgynous or otherwise entirely inhuman heads, I'd agree, but even if "ummm actually that's a woman's head", it still isn't *fairly* representative, because it looks very much like a male head, and represents men without representing women.
As I said - either Space Marines need to be rewritten and redesigned to become entirely agender, or women should be added too. And of the two, making Space Marines agender actually *would* require GW to remake the kits and rewrite the books. Adding women doesn't require any of that.
I mean, just google "Women with high testosterone" and you'll see that their facial features are very masculine. Imagine what magic space super soldier serum juice would do to someone.
I'm imagining what magic space super soldier serum juice would do...
...and I'm realising that because it's magic space super soldier serum juice, it could have absolutely any effect the writer wants. It might make Space Marines turn blue, it might make them look amphibian, it might make them look more feminine. We can't ever say "IT WOULD MAKE THEM LOOK LIKE MEN" because it's a magical space super soldier serum juice, and could literally do anything - we don't have it in reality.
What the question comes down to is "why on earth *should* the magic space super soldier serum juice erase the appearance of women, but not men?"
So, why not just say "these marines are female", and make it canon that they look exactly the same?
Because what they all happen to look is male. That's not representation.
Either Space Marines need to look entirely different from both men and women, so there isn't any kind of implicit "male = default", or that both men and women can be visually represented.
As for the science of marines having to be men because men are better at soldiering and growing muscle. Well that all falls down on two main points. One, the process of transformation into a marine starts before puberty, so hormone levels and muscle mass etc are irrelevant. It hasn’t started yet. At that age the levels are roughly the same, the strengths and muscle mass are the same. All you need to keep them level is some testosterone and some growth hormone. Not a big expenditure of resources when you think about what goes into making a marine. (To get the gene seed for a new chapter you need a thousand slaves to produce it who are sustained to adulthood and then destroyed, held in suspended animation). And two, even using flawed GW futuristic pseudo science, once a marine is developing all there hormonal needs are either artificially introduced or provided by implanted glands. If you read the actual process, testosterone or male hormones are not mentioned once.
So any logic based on this assumption is flawed and false.
Does it seem like pseudoscience to you to envision that to grow humans to be 7 feet tall that growth hormone would be required? That for such aggression and musculature testosterone would be required? I mean, you could always suggest Magic and that the warp is used to mafic space marines I supposed. At any rate, sticking to a more science fiction grounding, I think it's important you mention the process starts before puberty. We should notice that women who want to transition to being men are generally encouraged to take puberty blockers and begin testosterone treatment. The results are suppression if female traits and rise of masculine traits. Perhaps the reason you don't see female space marines is that the process is effective at allowing young women to transition as trans men, and that is why are all called brother. There's really nothing inherently flawed or inherently false about extending our understanding from science into science fiction to conceive of what might be happening realistically. At least nothing more so than asserting magic.
If you want to use real science to justify sci-fi science then try and understand real science a little bit first. And dressing up the fact that girls are banned in the spacemarine club as a fraternity then you are just using that term to hide misogyny. Show me one bit a text where the marines being all male is integral to the story. Where it actually matters. One. Challenge you. One story where it being an all male gang actually matters.
This is an example of where this thread gets abusive. It's hyperbolic and not in spirit with the decorum we are supposed to show on dakka dakka. I think we need to recognize the political component that keeps working it way into the discussion. Its when the discussion starts moving beyond the discussion of the ups/downs and ins/outs of female space marines into assertions of wickedness or "woman hating" as you out it. In the political sphere, we can recognize that there's a revolutionary movement that holds amongst it's core tenets that revolution must be brought to perceived strongholds of power, and within that school of thought any "boys club" as you put it is deemed an evil oppressive structure that must be dismantled. I think I am able to affirm based on the comments that this is the primary motivation for a lot of posters. Now though that's political at its source it isn't so much having that opinion openly is a problem, it's when you want to bring the forms of Struggle Session rhetoric and demonization of people who don't see the revolutionary program as necessary that it's really becoming toxic. When one begins to assert negative character and aspersions on people who don't share your value, shouldn't that be considered over the line on dakka?
For those who aren't part of the identity political revolutionary movement, it isn't apparent that GW must dismantle or rewrite astartes simply because it happens to be a popular male faction. It does not follow that it is an evil heresy that must be purged, and it seems queer that anyone who does not share the identity politics perspective has to be misconstrued, mocked, demonized, and so on. I recognize these are tactics commended in revolutionary identity politics "war on patriarchy" etc. But while a revolutionary may feel necessary to "engage on all fronts" in their culture war, couldn't dakka be a place where like Christmas trenches in wwI, we can stop demonizing each other for a bit, and talk without turning everything into an idealistic crusade where the heretic must be purged?
Or perhaps, like the imperium, it is simply not acceptable for anyone to have ideas beyond the imperial truth, and only zealous denouncement of the heretic is the acceptable path?
I think it's a bit toxic, but perhaps its an unavoidably toxic world now. But at least do not be mystified when the zealous missionary declares their imperial truth, and people say "is this really necessary?" and likewise, when the revolutionary missionary breaks out the flamer, this should not be a surprise either. I just wish more people would recognize the toxicity of this path and try to resist the call and temptation to bring the abusive elements of the revolution here at the very least.
My favourite bit is how you say everyone shouldn't be hyperbolic and combative then immediately get hyperbolic and combative.
Wanting to have representation for women/non-binary folks in the FLAGSHIP PRODUCT of a game and setting where there is a very vocal and aggressive sub-community that actively targets and threatens those who do not conform to their conservative view of the game, is NOT a crusade. We're not burning down your homes, smashing your minis and beating you to a pulp because you think representation doesn't matter. We're saying that's not a great stance to take and when people come back throwing insults then we respond in kind. It's never the people enforcing the status quo that are called out for bad behaviour, only those who are trying to improve the hobby for someone who isn't them. The fact that some of those who are pro-status quo and said some pretty awful stuff got shut down was a nice welcome surprise.
If the environment and community of the 40k hobby are seen as places for non-male/cis/white people to experience more discomfort and harassment then that is a serious problem.
You want 40k to be your safe space away from people who bully and threaten you? Great! So do these people and the fact that so many on here are either willfully or blissfully ignorant of that fact makes me very sad.
"Keep politics out of the hobby" is never ever ever used to mean "hey guys lets not argue whether Labour or the Conservatives are going to win the next general election", it's always used to shut down those who are marginal hobbyists (women/LGTB+ folk/non-whites) discussing their bad experiences with those who are ACTIVELY trying to remove them from the hobby.
And to reiterate for the thousandth time, it has always been the point of 40k to point out the absurdity of fascist imperial systems and ridicule those who support them. To survive in the modern world 40k has two choices:
1 - Ramp up the absurdity to a point where there isn't a single doubt that the entire setting is one big joke.
2 - Adapt to the changing Real World so that it doesn't get relegated to the past where it's ok to hate women.
Yes. It literally is all made up pseudoscience, fictional serums and potions, and warp magic.
There's no actual biology involved here.
At any rate, sticking to a more science fiction grounding
40k isn't sci-fi though. It's science fantasy. Reality need not apply here.
And, as I mention again - sexual dimorphism between men and women is so ridiculously low that there's no real reason (certainly not 'male tissue types') that women couldn't also have the magic space juice.
There's really nothing inherently flawed or inherently false about extending our understanding from science into science fiction to conceive of what might be happening realistically.
But your understanding of modern science is also flawed - the whole thing about "male and female tissue types" is complete baloney. There's absolutely no reason to assume that a magic space serum should affect one sex more than another.
It's hyperbolic and not in spirit with the decorum we are supposed to show on dakka dakka.
On the subject of "decorum" we ought to show people, I think we should start with people outright admitting that they care more about fictional words than they do other people. After all, I don't think that's a very fair way to talk about fellow humans.
I think we need to recognize the political component that keeps working it way into the discussion.
Inclusion of women isn't political.
In the political sphere, we can recognize that there's a revolutionary movement that holds amongst it's core tenets that revolution must be brought to perceived strongholds of power, and within that school of thought any "boys club" as you put it is deemed an evil oppressive structure that must be dismantled.
Or, and here's a revolutionary idea: that women should be equally and fairly represented?
If you don't want words putting in your mouth, don't put them in mine.
I think I am able to affirm based on the comments that this is the primary motivation for a lot of posters.
Now who's sounding "hyperbolic and not in spirit with decorum"?
For those who aren't part of the identity political revolutionary movement, it isn't apparent that GW must dismantle or rewrite astartes simply because it happens to be a popular male faction.
Why not? Or, more importantly, why is it so important that women aren't represented fairly?
It does not follow that it is an evil heresy that must be purged, and it seems queer that anyone who does not share the identity politics perspective has to be misconstrued, mocked, demonized, and so on.
Including women fairly isn't "identity politics".
I recognize these are tactics commended in revolutionary identity politics "war on patriarchy" etc. But while a revolutionary may feel necessary to "engage on all fronts" in their culture war, couldn't dakka be a place where like Christmas trenches in wwI, we can stop demonizing each other for a bit, and talk without turning everything into an idealistic crusade where the heretic must be purged?
Or perhaps, like the imperium, it is simply not acceptable for anyone to have ideas beyond the imperial truth, and only zealous denouncement of the heretic is the acceptable path?
Well that very much depends - why shouldn't women be fairly represented in 40k through Space Marines? Why can't Space Marines be touched? Why is "Space Marines must be all male" such an important thing that you'd keep women out of that faction?
Again, I do find it funny that you bring up "gee, wouldn't it be awful if people couldn't have any ideas beyond the the Imperial truth" - when that's literally what you're doing to people asking for women Astartes. The lore is your Imperial Truth, and you're calling those who disagree with it's necessity 'radicals, revolutionaries, and culture warriors'. Have you considered how that looks now?
I think it's a bit toxic, but perhaps its an unavoidably toxic world now. But at least do not be mystified when the zealous missionary declares their imperial truth, and people say "is this really necessary?" and likewise, when the revolutionary missionary breaks out the flamer, this should not be a surprise either. I just wish more people would recognize the toxicity of this path and try to resist the call and temptation to bring the abusive elements of the revolution here at the very least.
Christ, what kind of strawman is this?
There's no boogieman. There's no radical revolutionary come to burn you at the stake.
We just want fair representation for women in 40k. Why is that radical?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/08 14:07:48
My favourite bit is how you say everyone shouldn't be hyperbolic and combative then immediately get hyperbolic and combative.
Wanting to have representation for women/non-binary folks in the FLAGSHIP PRODUCT of a game and setting where there is a very vocal and aggressive sub-community that actively targets and threatens those who do not conform to their conservative view of the game, is NOT a crusade. We're not burning down your homes, smashing your minis and beating you to a pulp because you think representation doesn't matter. We're saying that's not a great stance to take and when people come back throwing insults then we respond in kind. It's never the people enforcing the status quo that are called out for bad behaviour, only those who are trying to improve the hobby for someone who isn't them. The fact that some of those who are pro-status quo and said some pretty awful stuff got shut down was a nice welcome surprise.
If the environment and community of the 40k hobby are seen as places for non-male/cis/white people to experience more discomfort and harassment then that is a serious problem.
You want 40k to be your safe space away from people who bully and threaten you? Great! So do these people and the fact that so many on here are either willfully or blissfully ignorant of that fact makes me very sad.
"Keep politics out of the hobby" is never ever ever used to mean "hey guys lets not argue whether Labour or the Conservatives are going to win the next general election", it's always used to shut down those who are marginal hobbyists (women/LGTB+ folk/non-whites) discussing their bad experiences with those who are ACTIVELY trying to remove them from the hobby.
And to reiterate for the thousandth time, it has always been the point of 40k to point out the absurdity of fascist imperial systems and ridicule those who support them. To survive in the modern world 40k has two choices:
1 - Ramp up the absurdity to a point where there isn't a single doubt that the entire setting is one big joke.
2 - Adapt to the changing Real World so that it doesn't get relegated to the past where it's ok to hate women.
Yes yes. In the grim darkness of identity politics there is only war it seems.
Ascribe to me heresies And beliefs I do not hold to. Demonize anyone who doesn't see necessity in a corporation modifying its product in the name of your crusade. Declare the identities of those you define as your enemies, recite your littanies of faith. Who could ask an ecclaiarch to be anything but what he is.
I'll say it again since it seems to be easy to miss. It is not necessary for a corporation to change a successful product simply because it has a male fraternity as a feature. Beyond the headspace of revolutionary identity politics is not evil to hold this opinion.
Neither of your latter assertions are necessary for 40k to survive because the mere existence of a popular male faction in fiction is not hatred of women, nor is the tolerance or enjoyment of its existence hatred.
At least not to people who haven't been evangelized to what seems more and more ironically resemble the beginnings of an cultural imperial crusade.
I seems I am a heretic priest, because I do not see the world as you do. I bear you no ill will, and I do not harbor the evil you imagine, but I recognize how you can not see the world beyond your faith. Be yourself I guess, what else can you be? Just be careful the righteous crusade of strife doesn't leave manbkind a prize as twisted as the imperium
Mate, you're not a heretic, you're the dogmatic.
It is just so amazing how people defending the status quo love to paint themselves as dangerous outcasts, villified and hunted down by the forces of opression that suggest maybe things could change just a little, please.
It just feels so nice to be opressed for your beliefs, martyred on the altar of Keeping Things The Same.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/08 14:32:58
Eldar- 4436 pts
