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.
some bloke wrote: Okay, I understand that. I feel perhaps that the need to feel included in the space marines is misplaced, but then I consider them to be kind of outside humanity.
Perhaps you feel that, but not everyone does. I have to ask why other people getting to be represented might be a problem for you, if you don't care either way?
In response to your counter question - I don't have an issue with people being represented. My personal views are that by insisting that people of all >insert your preferred method of dividing people up here< are represented in everything, you exacerbate the issue of >that method of dividing people<, because people start feeling they need to see >their division of people< in everything.
I don't think asking for women, 50% of the population, to be featured in a faction that makes up such a large portion of the hobby, is insisting on anything too radical here.
I want to see *fair* representation. Including women sounds very fair, no?
As a curiosity, what do we consider doing with Sisters of Battle, a faction entirely built around female characters. Nobody (that I've seen) has said we need male sisters of battle to make the faction representative of men. The only sisters player I've ever encountered was a guy, I doubt he had such issues.
The most important thing here is that Sisters of Battle aren't exactly as culturally dominant as Space Marines are.
If they were, this would be a very different issue, but Sisters don't come close to Astartes in a representative manner.
Inclusion is a far, far bigger issue than the models - it's the environment in GW stores, the general demeanor is often one of amazement that there's a woman in the store. I cringe when I'm in there and everyone just stares, it's a very awkward atmosphere to be in!
Absolutely agreed! But having visible representation, and that tacit endorsement of "yes, you're welcome, you can be part of the flagship faction!" would go a hell of a long way in encouraging a shift in those environments. Normalising women beyond just being Sisters of Battle, and in the most visible places possible - because as I've said representation means nothing without visibility.
some bloke wrote: On one hand, there's no reason why there can't be female marines if people want it. An easy headswap from a sisters sprue would do it without anything else needed. But the issue isn't the ability to make it, it's whether it's presented in the Canon.
Yes, because people use the canon to demean and stifle other people's creations.
A small example of what I mean - I'm in a 40k facebook group where people post pictures of Primaris Marines. One day, a user posted a diorama of two converted Space Marines holding hands. This was deleted by the moderators of that page because they were holding hands, and that was deemed "political" and "non-canon". That hobbyist's work was actively rejected because people used the canon to dictate what was and wasn't allowed - and yet I don't see custom Chapters taken down, even though they violate the same canon.
More importantly, it is also an issue of representation - even if GW say "yeah, you can go and make your own women Astartes, but we won't feature any of them", what kind of message is that sending about representing women?
It is worth remembering that the imperium of man is quite categorically evil. The people are heavily repressed, generally overpopulated, and space marines represent such a small proportion of humanity as to be negligible. The entire galaxy is existing in a post-apocalyptic wasteland style theme, and humanity is held ruthlessly under the Emperor by inquisitors who are willing to wipe out entire planets to drive out heresy.
It just seems in direct conflict of the theme for this immensely oppressive military-fanatic organization to consider gender equality in any way.
That's only true until you consider how the Imperium are marketed as heroic, and Space Marines being very easily cartoon-ified and used in a variety of merchandise.
If the Imperium were being portrayed by GW entirely as evil, then why would anyone want to have merch of a Space Marine? Yet, that merch sells. It's almost like Space Marines are a very iconic form of media, and people like being able to have a little bit of themselves reflected in that.
Also, no-one has answered whether we can expect male sisters of battle.
As I've said - when Sisters become as iconic as Space Marines, you can call me then.
some bloke wrote: I'm 100% for female imperial guard models, because that fits the current canon.
But why is the canon the way that it is?
To me, the fact that imperial guard is exclusively male is a far bigger problem than space marines, because marines have canonical reasons they are all male, and guard do not.
But what is the justification for those canonical reasons?
I would look to have a "Female Guard" version of all the guard kits, as opposed to additional options, as their bodies will be different shaped as well. That, to me, is a far bigger step in the right direction.
On one hand, we have "include women in the army made of normal humans!", and in the other, we have "rewrite the lore of this army for the sole purpose of including token female marines to appease those people claiming it's sexist not to!"
Seriously, if you add female marines but not female guard, you're making the problem worse - it becomes an obvious token offering to appease people instead of an acknowledgement that the models are 95% male, where applicable, in 40k.
The issue is that Space Marines make up the majority of those 95% male models. Fixing Guard doesn't change how Space Marines are still the flagship faction.
Fixing Space Marines fixes the issue that the most prominent 40k faction is an all boys club - and as I've said, representation only matter when it's visible.
some bloke wrote: I guess the majority of my feelings is that if they just give you different heads for one specific army and they don't add women to armies which don't need a lore change, it's literally going to sound like "we made this army have girls in it so that girls can play the game too".
That, to me, is far more sexist and problematic than saying "they're all men, because the story says so, so that's what they are".
But why does the story say so? The story didn't just spring into existence, why does the story say that women can't join? Seems like a pretty arbitrary reason to me.
Would people want historic games based on WW1 and WW2 to have mixed frontline soldiers? no, because they weren't - the "story" says so (inverted commas because, you know, it's not a story, it's true)
40k is fictional. WW1/2 have some basis in a historical reality.
40k is, as you just said above, a story, an entirely fictional one at at that.
Would people want sisters of battle to include men? No, because the story says they don't.
Why is it different with space marines?
Because why does the story say that women can't? I can see what having all-women Sisters does for the story for the Sororitas (and I'd also like to mention that men do play a significant role in both the story and can even feature on the tabletop for Sisters) - but what does Space Marines being men add to their identity? GW certainly don't focus on it, so if people are attributing something, is it anything more than headcanon?
@Insectum7:
Spoiler:
Insectum7 wrote: Imo there are two ways to take background that looks goofy on the face of it (fused ribcages being an example). One is to say "That's preposterous!" and forget about it because "pew, pew, pew fun!". Another way is to investigate it and look at ways to "solve" it using the tools existing within the problem space. The latter tends to give more interesting possibilities, and from a writing perspective, flesh out the world in a more engaging way.
But why does that problem exist in the first place?
the_scotsman wrote: boy, for a group of folks that apparently has absolutely zero skin in this particular game, you sure do seem dedicated to providing what I guess is just sort of a neutral, devil's advocate opposition for going on thirty pages.
I'm not willing to say that a fictional all male faction is automatically abhorrent because of 'the feels'. But that appears to be a major theme.
No-one said that being a fictional all-male faction was inherently a problem.
The issue, as I've said, is that the all-male faction just happens to be the flagship faction.
I also think the 'self identify' argument is a poor one, since many people are quite happy to play Tyranids, etc.
That's a very strong misunderstanding of what "self-identifying" and the whole point of representation are.
Insectum7 wrote: Ok so you're actually OK with an all-male faction. That's important to know.
Yes, I am. I never claimed I wasn't, if the faction had a good reason for it.
I'd argue that Custodes are better designed from an inclusion standpoint for two reasons:
1: They are individually made, rather than 'factory/formula printed' the way that Space Marines are.
I don't see why that would change anything. If anything, Space Marines being the "factory/formula printed" way they are makes more sense for mixed gender, because the Imperium just wants to get mass bodies out there - male and female alike, just like with the Guard.
From a design standpoint, Space Marines being male and female further establishes the dehumanising and eradicative properties of Astartes enhancement, so that no matter if you're a male or female, you're going to be an Astartes by the end.
2: If Custodes were all male, that keeps us in the paradigm of "Men make the best/elitest" soldiers.
Except that they're only that because they have been given specific enhancements - not because they got those enhancements because of "male tissue". Plus, if we're really complaining about "the paradigm of men make the best soldiers", then do you say we should make the Primarchs women too? Because Primarchs are better than Custodes.
Again - Custodes aren't the flagship faction. Them being all men is more acceptable because they're not as visible in the 40k sphere. Space Marines are - and that's the largest issue.
I genuinely think that the optics would be better and more interesting if the Space Marines stayed all male, but the absolute-top-tier-golden-Emperors-finest-warriors were both men and women.
And I genuinely don't see why Space Marines need to stay all-male, or be all-male in the first place.
And as I just said, Custodes aren't "the absolute top tier Emperor's finest warriors" - those were the Primarchs. Should the Primarchs be mixed gender?
The rest of your responses can more or less be reduced to the fact that Space Marines are marketed the most, and I feel that can be changed (and should be changed).
I agree. That can and should be changed. But it will take an absurd amount of time to do, and will not accommodate for the cultural legacy Space Marines will leave behind.
On the counterpoint, why can't we do both? Why is adding a sprue of women's heads such a faux pas?
The mere existence of women has nothing to do with it.
So what is it? All we're asking for is women to be more fairly represented, and the only way to properly achieve representation is through visibility.
Why are people conflating this with politics?
@RegularGuy:
Spoiler:
RegularGuy wrote: I'm not antagonistic to people wanting female marines.
Except that you're misrepresenting their arguments at every turn.
the general pattern is that a number of people do not appear capable of absorbing, considering, or tolerating other perspectives.
Agreed. This is especially evident in the people who ignore the testimony of women asking for representation, and dismiss it as entirely unnecssary because they don't understand what representation means.
I'd call that an excellent example of not appearing to be "capable of absorbing, considering or tolerating other perspectives".
I'm not sure how much of the problem comes from being unwilling or unable to read understand and empathize with other voices
This is exceptionally ironic.
The amount of times that women Astartes supporters have been called "activists", "Marxists", "culture warriors", "SJWs", or that women's experiences of feeling unrepresented "don't matter" is astounding - and yet you try and pin this as something *you're* the victim of?
RegularGuy wrote: I don't recall discussing harmfulness or harmlessness. Other than it does not seem obviously abhorent for a fraternal order to exist in a company's product / fiction profile.
No-one said it was.
The issue is that the fraternal order is the flagship faction of the company's product line.
Now when you say "relevance to the story", I'm going to asssume you mean the general 40k universe and space marines in particular, please correct me if I take that incorrectly. It seems from the fiction and asethetics that the Astartes are something like an order of warrior monks, who constantly say "brother" to each other as a fraternal order.
Are the Space Wolves an order of warrior monks? Because they certainly don't act like it. Same with the Raptors, who act more as tacticool spec ops. Same as the Emperor's Spears or White Scars, who have much stronger tribal designs, and less like monks.
Aside from using specific gendered pronouns, the "fraternity" aspect is never highlighted in Astartes design. By contrast, it is for the Custodes.
I also don't view it as neccessary for it to be critical to any story, narrative or arc. Just as I don't view it as neccessary for it NOT to exist.
Even though you can't really even justify *why* it's there, you're just happy to accept it being there, even though other people are giving personal reasons why it's harmful to them?
In the interest of respecting people who find it harmful, why don't you listen to them if you're so indifferent on the matter?
It strikes me as I read through the thread, that the demand to affirm female space marines really has much less to do with the game and the story in general, and more to do with a desire to dismantle popular literary or game instances of any sort of fraternal orders, with the general implications that such dismanlting is a moral and historic imperative for a better social order. At least that's a general outline of what I surmise from the comments.
That's because you're not reading them.
I've made it very clear that Custodes are fine as a fraternal order, because they actually use the tropes of a fraternal order much better than Space Marines do, and because they're not the Flagship Faction TM.
The issue isn't with fraternal orders existing. The issue is with fraternal orders existing *for no reason*, and when they're disproportionately represented.
How much clearer do I need to make this?
@The_Grim_Angel:
Spoiler:
The_Grim_Angel wrote: Because if there is a recurrent complain about W40k, is that the Space Marines are too overpowered to make the game really satisfactory for every player (trust me: I played the Eldar) and the idea to create a line of female space marines models wouldn't solve that issue in any way.
"a line of female Space Marine models"? No-one was discussing that.
We're discussing a headswap sprue.
If the purpose is improve the game experience, the solution is to create better rules and more balanced armies, not to create a new line of models which wouldn't change anything about the game experience.
We're not talking about the game experience though. We're talking about the hobby experience overall, such as collecting your own armies, converting your models, painting them, and generally just getting involved.
What I have to wonder is why you think that adding women Space Marines would negatively affect the game experience.
The_Grim_Angel wrote: If the introduction of the female space marines is a negligible change, why be so upset if some people thinks it isn't necessary?
Then I have to ask why it's not necessary.
If it's such a negligible change, why have there been 30 pages of people making vague allusions to this somehow being some kind of nail in the coffin of their enjoyment of 40k?
I would be upset if we were discussing about changes able to make the game more balanced and enjoyable, but someone opposed to it in order to protect the unfair advantage the rules give to his army, not about a negligible change.
Including women fairly *would* make the game more enjoyable though.
Maybe not for you perhaps, but then, would it negatively impact your enjoyment? Even if it didn't bring you enjoyment, would it make you enjoy it less? Why?
the_scotsman wrote: The value of lore that limits what you are allowed to do and make within the game is, in my opinion, the least valuable type of lore detail that exists. And almost all of the time, it's just an arbitrary restriction that exists to reflect the way the model range looks, and preclude third party miniiature makers from making a thing. "Chaos space marines don't use loyalist equipment because it breaks down in the warp" really? five minutes after a chapter of space marines goes renegade, their Hunter and Stalker and Razorback tanks all break down, crumbling into dust and blowing away in the breeze like Thanos snapped them, but their Vindicators and Predators and Rhinos are all fine? all their centurions instantly say 'mr. chaos lord, i dont feel so good...' There's no additive value to any of it. it's just silly IP puppyguarding.
I view space marines being all male as the same thing. And yes, it's not a gotcha, sisters of battle being all female as the same thing. But sisters of battle being women does actually serve as a defining attribute of the army. So change the lore to make them exactly the same as the eldar aspects - any aspirant can be called by the Emperor to become a member of the Adepta Sororitas, where they don the blessed armor and wield the blessed weapons and fight as one of the emperor's favored daughters. The grim darkness of the 41st millennium with its servitors and arco-flagellants and servo-skulls and servo-cherubs and techpriests does not appear to be a place where minor details of one's anatomy are considered to be particularly sacrosanct or even set in stone. Besides, an individual born less...naturally disposed towards serving in the role of one of the emperor's blessed daughters comes with but one more ready-made sacrifice by which to prove their unwavering devotion.
Very much agreed.
What does having Space Marines be all men actually *add* to the setting? GW don't utilise their fraternal side all that much, compared to the Custodes, who form a much tighter knit group. The only thing that Space Marines being men seems to do is act as a way to keep women out of Astartes power armour. It actively hinders creative choice, and for a faction which is so built on creative choice and "Your Dudes", this seems antithetical to that.
It's a bit strange that you asked me to provide like, a full scientific study with a representative statistically significant sample size of hate responses within the 40k community, but did not ask Some Bloke to provide anything similar for his claim that people would ask for, in his words:
"At risk of sounding like some crazy extreme type, the fact stands that a lot of outspoken people (as in, the ones who enjoy shouting about how offended they are and not the ones who actually are getting offended by it - the shouters, not the victims) are not happy unless they have something to shout about being offended by. They feel that being offended gives them power over the person who they consider offensive.
Women can be space marines - no problem there.
Then Women can be heroes - again, no problem there.
Then women can be Primarchs - well, we already have them, but if you really need a female one we can add a lost one...
Then "half of the Primarchs must be women or it's not equal" - seriously, the world doesn't work like that...
Then "There should be an Empress as well as an emperor", and this is where all those years of carefully crafted lore crumbles into a politically-correct grey powder."
All I proposed was a little experiment, to see if he would experience a similar response to what I have personally received, and which I have anecdotally observed within the community. i.e. zero evidence ever for this supposed subcommunity of eternally offended activists demanding things like 'a female emperor' and 'half of the primarchs should be female' and plenty of evidence for some people reacting negatively when you present female models neutrally as a thing that exists.
"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!"
Grimskul wrote: I mean that's hardly a sample size that's conclusive and indicative of the instant persecution you seem to imply posting pics of female marines would bring.
Doing just a cursory search I could find one relatively recent Reddit post of female Primaris and there's little to no negative response to it.
Oooh! I've seen these Marines before!
Fun fact - that facebook group I referenced just earlier? They deleted these from their page, because they were women Astartes.
Just figured you might want to know that.
(Also, did you miss the comment at the bottom saying "But is it not that a problem that a woman have a smaller brain than a man?" Not sure I'd see that comment on a unit of male Astartes.)
Let's say you make a super-soldier-serum, and it takes 1000 years (for all I know, I don't know the SM lore off by heart) to perfect it. When used, it turns males into huge super soldiers, and it kills women.
Why, in a galaxy rife with overpopulation and beset by enemies, would they spend more time and resources making this serum, which already makes perfectly functional super soldiers, so that it can also make perfectly functional super soldiers with slightly different facial features?
SM are constantly shown as a dying breed, the "last line of defence that wears thin". If someone like Cawl found a way to stop this why would they not implement it? They already did with Primaris.
Assuming that someone is putting the work into making more space marines, they would start with the known system that works. If I say "your only way to survive this is to make a key" and I give you a key that needs filing to shape (male-serum) and a lump of iron ore (female serum), you are going to try and make the key work. You're not going to start from scratch and smelt iron to forge into a key. There's no logical reason for any in-hobby persons to be trying to make female marines.
Spoiler:
Furthermore, it's probably an aspect of Jurassic Park in here. If you created a race of human who were genetically and physically superior to humans in every way, you would not want to make both genders of this race, which if it shook off the shackles of human control and started populating its own worlds, would probably wipe out humanity. The reason they made all the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park female is probably one of the reasons for making super soldiers all one gender.
SM are easier to control than animals. Also, it's a pretty consistent thing that they don't have the capability to reproduce and SM don't use frog DNA so they can't just evolve into the opposite sex.
They have proven to be easier to control - but the people making them didn't know that would be the case. They wouldn't have risked it. And I'm not suggesting "life will find a way" or they spontaneously shift to the opposite sex. I'm suggesting that making an army of extremely powerful Adams & Eves would be an incredibly poor decision, and one I suspect the Men of Iron would have taught them against doing.
Spoiler:
As for people saying "it's the flagship of the game, so it needs to include everyone" - This is a weird way to think. Because space marines are popular, let's change them to be more inclusive, but not do so on the less popular races? Regardless of whether people are against it (which I acknowledge that they aren't), this thread singles out space marines, specifically, because they are popular.
Show me where anyone said the other factions that have mixed armed forces shouldn't get better representation. Oh yeah, you can't because nobody said that.
This thread is dedicated to female marines, and saying that they should get it because they are the flagship of the company. This is literally adding a token female aspect to the game in an effort to make it feel more inclusive, putting it on display and saying "now girls can play too!". That, to me, sounds horrendous. That's the worst justification they could do.
Spoiler:
The problem is, you're going to get to a point where the game and its stories are sacrificed for the sake of appeasing the outspoken, despite all the thousands (or even millions) of people quietly enjoying the game and not giving a rats arse that the marines are all male, including women who don't feel that just because the models are all men they aren't allowed to play.
At risk of sounding like some crazy extreme type, the fact stands that a lot of outspoken people (as in, the ones who enjoy shouting about how offended they are and not the ones who actually are getting offended by it - the shouters, not the victims) are not happy unless they have something to shout about being offended by. They feel that being offended gives them power over the person who they consider offensive.
Lmao, that's literally never happened before. Did Marvel, DC, Star Wars, or Star Trek lose their entire fanbase because they added more women/LBGT+/non-white characters? No, they didn't. How do you know said "silent majority" won't react positively to female SM? It gives them more modeling options, stories to tell, and a chance to introduce female partners/friends/family to the hobby without relegating them to religious fanatics or BDSM space elves.
There's literally the most cringeworthy page from a comic earlier in this thread. Whilst people may not actively walk away from Marvel, the fact remains that the quality of that comic was made worse by trying to appease people.
Spoiler:
Women can be space marines - no problem there.
Then Women can be heroes - again, no problem there.
Then women can be Primarchs - well, we already have them, but if you really need a female one we can add a lost one...
Then "half of the Primarchs must be women or it's not equal" - seriously, the world doesn't work like that...
Then "There should be an Empress as well as an emperor", and this is where all those years of carefully crafted lore crumbles into a politically-correct grey powder.
I know this sounds extreme, and it's not a call to not include female space marines. The concern is whether this is actually an issue that is affecting people, or if it is an issue which people are choosing to shout about so that they can feel powerful.
If it's extreme and not part of the discussion why make the point? "Slippery Slope" is the dumbest and most worthless argument ever made because it never takes into account anything but hyperbole.
As for the issue of misogyny/sexism/harassment and threat towards women hobbyists, yes this is absolutely a real issue that shouldn't have to be explained every 3 days because someone didn't actually read the thread.
Spoiler:
I honestly thing an army of female marines would be very cool to see. But the reason for doing it has to be to add to the game, not to appease the outspoken shouters of the internet age.
First off 40k isn't just a game, it's a hobby with multiple facets. Someone can be into 40k and never touch a mini or play the game. The reason is to make the hobby more accessible and indeed safe to women hobbyists. How is that not adding to the hobby?
I'm sorry, but adding female space marines will not make the hobby more accessible and safe for female gamers.
When a female gamer walks into the local GW, and everyone stops talking in stunned silence, most of the men in the room turn to stare at her as if they have never seen a woman before, and continue to stare like the eyes of haunted paintings, she's not going to go "wow, the fact that the models in the picture in the window are all men has put me right off, I'm leaving!".
The problem with accessibility and safety is firmly and permanently an issue with the people who play the game, not the game itself.
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!
Tygre wrote: That's an Escher Matriarch. Not a male. Looks quite masculine from the front, but looks more feminine from different angles. Still a butch "lady".
Or they just use feminine pronouns. Might be part of the Escher way of life, be any sex you want but use feminine pronouns to give the illusion of only women in the gang.
Aren't Custodes actually built, not bred? Like, one of the reasons I would be against female custodes is it would be pointless. They are essentially automatons. They are incapable of emotion, free will, or disobeying a command according to the fluff. Female Astartes might be able to display a level of individualism and thinking/spirited personality that a Custodian is literally incapable of.
The only one who does seem capable of disobeying a command or showing any form of emotion is Valarian. Who is viewed as something of a failure by his cohorts, because he disobeyed the command to stand by the emperor.
some bloke wrote: Let's say you make a super-soldier-serum, and it takes 1000 years (for all I know, I don't know the SM lore off by heart) to perfect it. When used, it turns males into huge super soldiers, and it kills women.
Why, in a galaxy rife with overpopulation and beset by enemies, would they spend more time and resources making this serum, which already makes perfectly functional super soldiers, so that it can also make perfectly functional super soldiers with slightly different facial features?
My counterpoint - why does the super-soldier-serum kill women? It's entirely made up - so why is there a made-up rule that it has to kill women?
Furthermore, it's probably an aspect of Jurassic Park in here. If you created a race of human who were genetically and physically superior to humans in every way, you would not want to make both genders of this race, which if it shook off the shackles of human control and started populating its own worlds, would probably wipe out humanity. The reason they made all the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park female is probably one of the reasons for making super soldiers all one gender.
Just because you have male and female Astartes doesn't mean that they're fertile. In fact, I seem to think most people have said that Space Marines are sterile, even in their current all-male form.
As for people saying "it's the flagship of the game, so it needs to include everyone" - This is a weird way to think. Because space marines are popular, let's change them to be more inclusive, but not do so on the less popular races? Regardless of whether people are against it (which I acknowledge that they aren't), this thread singles out space marines, specifically, because they are popular.
Yes, it absolutely singles them out, because they're popular, because representation is nothing without visibility.
The problem is, you're going to get to a point where the game and its stories are sacrificed for the sake of appeasing the outspoken, despite all the thousands (or even millions) of people quietly enjoying the game and not giving a rats arse that the marines are all male, including women who don't feel that just because the models are all men they aren't allowed to play.
What part of including some women into the flagship faction would "sacrifice" anything? What is lost from doing that?
What I have to ask is, all those thousands and millions of people quietly enjoying the game and not giving a rat's arse about a blatant lack of representation: would they be negatively affected if representation were to happen?
At risk of sounding like some crazy extreme type, the fact stands that a lot of outspoken people (as in, the ones who enjoy shouting about how offended they are and not the ones who actually are getting offended by it - the shouters, not the victims) are not happy unless they have something to shout about being offended by. They feel that being offended gives them power over the person who they consider offensive.
Uh, no. That's very much a pretty baseless assertion on your part there.
Women can be space marines - no problem there. Then Women can be heroes - again, no problem there. Then women can be Primarchs - well, we already have them, but if you really need a female one we can add a lost one... Then "half of the Primarchs must be women or it's not equal" - seriously, the world doesn't work like that... Then "There should be an Empress as well as an emperor", and this is where all those years of carefully crafted lore crumbles into a politically-correct grey powder.
That's one hell of a slippery slope you've invented there.
I know this sounds extreme, and it's not a call to not include female space marines. The concern is whether this is actually an issue that is affecting people, or if it is an issue which people are choosing to shout about so that they can feel powerful.
As I've said - there's been links to efforts from women hobbyists who *have* been affected. It's not hard to find women who feel ostracised from the community.
Why are y'all so reluctant to hear their voices?
I honestly thing an army of female marines would be very cool to see. But the reason for doing it has to be to add to the game, not to appease the outspoken shouters of the internet age.
Why is representation "appeasement"? More importantly, why would adding them take away from the game?
We have a reason to add them: representation, and new ways to convert and design your Marines. What's the reason not to have them?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
some bloke wrote: Assuming that someone is putting the work into making more space marines, they would start with the known system that works. If I say "your only way to survive this is to make a key" and I give you a key that needs filing to shape (male-serum) and a lump of iron ore (female serum), you are going to try and make the key work. You're not going to start from scratch and smelt iron to forge into a key. There's no logical reason for any in-hobby persons to be trying to make female marines.
There's also no logical reason that female marines shouldn't be possible in the first place.
They have proven to be easier to control - but the people making them didn't know that would be the case. They wouldn't have risked it. And I'm not suggesting "life will find a way" or they spontaneously shift to the opposite sex. I'm suggesting that making an army of extremely powerful Adams & Eves would be an incredibly poor decision, and one I suspect the Men of Iron would have taught them against doing.
Also irrelevant because Astartes are sterile.
This thread is dedicated to female marines, and saying that they should get it because they are the flagship of the company. This is literally adding a token female aspect to the game in an effort to make it feel more inclusive, putting it on display and saying "now girls can play too!". That, to me, sounds horrendous. That's the worst justification they could do.
Adding a few members from 50% of the population into a faction which has no reason not to include them isn't tokenism in the slightest.
Featuring women isn't tokenistic, it's *accurate*.
There's literally the most cringeworthy page from a comic earlier in this thread. Whilst people may not actively walk away from Marvel, the fact remains that the quality of that comic was made worse by trying to appease people.
Or, perhaps it's because people didn't like what they saw?
I'm just saying, I'm not exactly buying these "facts".
I'm sorry, but adding female space marines will not make the hobby more accessible and safe for female gamers.
Why not?
When a female gamer walks into the local GW, and everyone stops talking in stunned silence, most of the men in the room turn to stare at her as if they have never seen a woman before, and continue to stare like the eyes of haunted paintings, she's not going to go "wow, the fact that the models in the picture in the window are all men has put me right off, I'm leaving!".
The problem with accessibility and safety is firmly and permanently an issue with the people who play the game, not the game itself.
And so perhaps if those people who play the game had active visibility of women front and centre, making it clear that they're part of the hobby, and belong at the forefront like everyone else, instead of relegated to side factions and obscure 5 kit "armies", maybe that might change some of the people playing the game.
Removing the illusion that it's a "boy's thing" by featuring women in the forefront, like, say, being a Space Marine, would go a hell of a distance in changing the attitudes of the people playing the game.
You say "most of the men stare as if they'd never seen a woman" - so make them see women Space Marines.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/09 15:01:44
Assuming that someone is putting the work into making more space marines, they would start with the known system that works. If I say "your only way to survive this is to make a key" and I give you a key that needs filing to shape (male-serum) and a lump of iron ore (female serum), you are going to try and make the key work. You're not going to start from scratch and smelt iron to forge into a key. There's no logical reason for any in-hobby persons to be trying to make female marines.
If making a SM was a single step of serum injection then sure I would agree with you but it isn't so the same logic doesn't apply. The only issue seems to stem from gene-seed. The logical in-universe reason would be getting the other 50% of the human population viable as recruits and double the chances of the process going well and increasing the vitally needed troops.
Spoiler:
They have proven to be easier to control - but the people making them didn't know that would be the case. They wouldn't have risked it. And I'm not suggesting "life will find a way" or they spontaneously shift to the opposite sex. I'm suggesting that making an army of extremely powerful Adams & Eves would be an incredibly poor decision, and one I suspect the Men of Iron would have taught them against doing.
[spoiler]
Take out the reproductive organs during the surgery to implant the others. Done.
[spoiler]
This thread is dedicated to female marines, and saying that they should get it because they are the flagship of the company. This is literally adding a token female aspect to the game in an effort to make it feel more inclusive, putting it on display and saying "now girls can play too!". That, to me, sounds horrendous. That's the worst justification they could do.
Ignoring my point doesn't justify your one chief. Also, that's how marketing works and considering the corner GW has knowingly or otherwise backed itself into with SM unless SoB and SM are brought to the exact same standard of marketing and media presence in the coming years and there is a large enough base of women/girl hobbyists that adding female SM wouldn't feel like pandering, adding female SM relatively soon is the only real option.
Spoiler:
There's literally the most cringeworthy page from a comic earlier in this thread. Whilst people may not actively walk away from Marvel, the fact remains that the quality of that comic was made worse by trying to appease people.
So one page from one comic means no adding representation ever. Ok.
Spoiler:
I'm sorry, but adding female space marines will not make the hobby more accessible and safe for female gamers.
When a female gamer walks into the local GW, and everyone stops talking in stunned silence, most of the men in the room turn to stare at her as if they have never seen a woman before, and continue to stare like the eyes of haunted paintings, she's not going to go "wow, the fact that the models in the picture in the window are all men has put me right off, I'm leaving!".
The problem with accessibility and safety is firmly and permanently an issue with the people who play the game, not the game itself.
If GW were to show that the hobby is intended to be enjoyed by all and makes it very obvious that sexism/racism/transphobia/homophobia/etc. aren't going to be welcome then making the flagship product the face of that policy would be a right step. Nobody is saying it will change the environment overnight but if after a couple of years of SM being a mixed faction, someone posts a female SM on social media and doesn't get death threats and harassment then I'd say that's a win.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/09 15:05:36
the_scotsman wrote: ....I would propose you undertake a little experiment. Dig a little bit online and find a picture of a basic converted female space marine headswap that's not painted to any kind of 'museum quality paintjob' or conversion or whatever, and post it up online somewhere like I guess reddit with a neutral title like "painted a marine."
Then, do the same thing, but grab a quick picture of a unit of space marines where every marine is male. Just like, 10 intercessors or something. Post it up to the same place, with a neutral title like 'painted some marines.'
My guess is, given my own experience with posting pictures of my deathwatch, which have names and include some helmeted models with names like "Sister Artemis - Huntresses" alongside "Brother Invictus - Sons of Ultramar" that a small minority of people are going to come along, and exercise a degree of power by being offended and sending you anonymous hate over the internet.
I would hypothesize, just again, based on experience, that you would get absolutely zero of that minority of people getting offended and sending you anonymous hate for not including any women in your squad of all-male space marines, and you could get 100% of that minority sending you anonymous hate because of the post you put up of a space marine who happened to have a female head, or in my case, name.
I mean that's hardly a sample size that's conclusive and indicative of the instant persecution you seem to imply posting pics of female marines would bring.
Doing just a cursory search I could find one relatively recent Reddit post of female Primaris and there's little to no negative response to it.
Just from the comments (don't see this person's PMs, which was where I got the "kill yourself t****y" "slit your wrists" "F*** like you have no place here" comments)
"Actually, within the fluff, yes there is a reason. I mean, if you want to make female Marines, hey, more power to you, but yes, there is a reason they can’t go through the process."
"While i'm all for the female space marines. Unless some of the original 18 primarchs were female all space marines are men.
What i'm saying is create your own 2nd/eleventh primarch who's female."
"But is it not that a problem that a woman have a smaller brain than a man?"
Some Bloke's post was talking about a small minority of people who exercise power in a community by acting offended at something. What I have never seen, is that, when someone posts up pics of all-male space marines.
What you do see - like in this post - is a small minority of people exercising power in a community by acting offended at the existence of someone else's models being female whenever that gets posted up. And my own experience is that that offense is pretty minor on the actual comments of the actual post, and then you get several much nastier hate PMs from sock puppets afterwards.
I did say little to no, not none at all, and I wasn't signed into Reddit at the time, so I couldn't see the last comment that was downvoted so I couldn't see it. One trollsy comment ain't exactly a huge persecution movement compared to like the 80% positive comments towards her work on that post. And the other ones I would say are pretty much civilly discussing the lore basis behind it if you wanted to justify them being female, which is fair since if you did want to stick to the lore, you would have to resort to the missing Primarchs/headcanon.
Fair point regarding that I didn't consider the PM's being toxic, but I feel like that is an aspect of being able to be anonymous online and the nature of social media moreso than something unique to female SM modellists.
Grimskul wrote: I did say little to no, not none at all, and I wasn't signed into Reddit at the time, so I couldn't see the last comment that was downvoted so I couldn't see it. One trollsy comment ain't exactly a huge persecution movement compared to like the 80% positive comments towards her work on that post. And the other ones I would say are pretty much civilly discussing the lore basis behind it if you wanted to justify them being female, which is fair since if you did want to stick to the lore, you would have to resort to the missing Primarchs/headcanon.
I also again mention that these very same models were reposted on a similar 40k facebook group, and were taken down for being "political".
Last note, but I don't believe the creator for these Marines is a woman, from what I remember on that facebook group.
Fair point regarding that I didn't consider the PM's being toxic, but I feel like that is an aspect of being able to be anonymous online and the nature of social media moreso than something unique to female SM modellists.
There's still no excuse for it, and if they're using "muh lore" as an excuse, then what's wrong with removing that excuse from their arsenal of hatred? Why not delegitimise their hatred and bigotry?
Again - these comments would not be made if these were male Astartes.
the_scotsman wrote: ....I would propose you undertake a little experiment. Dig a little bit online and find a picture of a basic converted female space marine headswap that's not painted to any kind of 'museum quality paintjob' or conversion or whatever, and post it up online somewhere like I guess reddit with a neutral title like "painted a marine."
Then, do the same thing, but grab a quick picture of a unit of space marines where every marine is male. Just like, 10 intercessors or something. Post it up to the same place, with a neutral title like 'painted some marines.'
My guess is, given my own experience with posting pictures of my deathwatch, which have names and include some helmeted models with names like "Sister Artemis - Huntresses" alongside "Brother Invictus - Sons of Ultramar" that a small minority of people are going to come along, and exercise a degree of power by being offended and sending you anonymous hate over the internet.
I would hypothesize, just again, based on experience, that you would get absolutely zero of that minority of people getting offended and sending you anonymous hate for not including any women in your squad of all-male space marines, and you could get 100% of that minority sending you anonymous hate because of the post you put up of a space marine who happened to have a female head, or in my case, name.
I mean that's hardly a sample size that's conclusive and indicative of the instant persecution you seem to imply posting pics of female marines would bring.
Doing just a cursory search I could find one relatively recent Reddit post of female Primaris and there's little to no negative response to it.
Just from the comments (don't see this person's PMs, which was where I got the "kill yourself t****y" "slit your wrists" "F*** like you have no place here" comments)
"Actually, within the fluff, yes there is a reason. I mean, if you want to make female Marines, hey, more power to you, but yes, there is a reason they can’t go through the process."
"While i'm all for the female space marines. Unless some of the original 18 primarchs were female all space marines are men.
What i'm saying is create your own 2nd/eleventh primarch who's female."
"But is it not that a problem that a woman have a smaller brain than a man?"
Some Bloke's post was talking about a small minority of people who exercise power in a community by acting offended at something. What I have never seen, is that, when someone posts up pics of all-male space marines.
What you do see - like in this post - is a small minority of people exercising power in a community by acting offended at the existence of someone else's models being female whenever that gets posted up. And my own experience is that that offense is pretty minor on the actual comments of the actual post, and then you get several much nastier hate PMs from sock puppets afterwards.
I did say little to no, not none at all, and I wasn't signed into Reddit at the time, so I couldn't see the last comment that was downvoted so I couldn't see it. One trollsy comment ain't exactly a huge persecution movement compared to like the 80% positive comments towards her work on that post. And the other ones I would say are pretty much civilly discussing the lore basis behind it if you wanted to justify them being female, which is fair since if you did want to stick to the lore, you would have to resort to the missing Primarchs/headcanon.
Fair point regarding that I didn't consider the PM's being toxic, but I feel like that is an aspect of being able to be anonymous online and the nature of social media moreso than something unique to female SM modellists.
It is not unique to female sm modelling. Obviously. That was never my point, and it's very strange how much you really want to talk about the contribution I made as a response to another person, but not the original proposition of the person I responded to.
My point, the entire extent of my premise, is:
1) a small minority contingent of people who will use their being offended as an excuse to throw anonymous abuse comments your way when you do not model your space marines including female models, or when you discuss, make posts about, draw art of or paint primarchs, the emperor, custodes, or any other all-male group within 40k, does not appear to exist by any observable metric. I have looked into the comments of a couple dozen reddit posts showing all-male units of space marines at this point, and have not found a single angry feminist anywhere.
2) a small minority contingent of people who will use their being offended as an excuse to throw anonymous abuse comments your way when you DO model your space marines including female models, or when you discuss, make posts about, draw art of or paint primarchs, custodes...I guess the emperor idk that was Some Bloke's thing but, whatever, or any other all-male group within 40k as including women, or being all women DOES appear to exist by an observable metric.
If you really want scientific levels of rigor for a similar claim, there have actually been sociological studies done on the level of abuse received by people online making the exact same comments with the exact same intonations with a male voice and a female voice in video games. Just because 'reddit PMs you get posting images of female space marines' is an incredibly niche subcategory of a similar phenomenon such that a sufficient data sample is basically impossible to get, doesn't mean it's unreasonable to extrapolate that the level of anonymous abuse would be similar or worse in a community like wargaming, which has less female representation than the broader sphere of gaming.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/09 15:43:44
"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!"
Sister of battle are not a good form of female representation. I keep saying this. They are exclusively female. Making women something “other” in 40K. The have a very sexualised presentation. Corsets, armoured boobs. There are even high heals. They have the aesthetic of a sexy Joan of arc or a fetishised nun. Objectified female representation isn’t a good thing. It is like saying porn is very good for women because they feature in it a lot. While I think you would find most women would agree porn is not remotely representative but entirely objectifying. Sister of battle were a bad pun 25 years ago. Now they are with sone nice models.
I mean they are...literally objects, it is a miniatures game, so you got it there for sure.
And I don't know. Sisters seem to be less objectified than...most female superheroes, for example. I know reaction from female hobbyists towards the female stormcast has been generally better than the reaction towards the new SoB, but basically 1 in every 2 40k cosplays you get people posting pictures of online is a sister of battle.
And they don't have high heels, that's just the one limited release finecast model based on the 2nd ed art. All the new design plastic sisters are wearing flat shoes. Their full suit of armor does include (fairly restrained, by general miniature industry standard) boobplate and a corset, that's true.
"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!"
Andykp wrote: Sister of battle are not a good form of female representation. I keep saying this. They are exclusively female. Making women something “other” in 40K. The have a very sexualised presentation. Corsets, armoured boobs. There are even high heals. They have the aesthetic of a sexy Joan of arc or a fetishised nun. Objectified female representation isn’t a good thing. It is like saying porn is very good for women because they feature in it a lot. While I think you would find most women would agree porn is not remotely representative but entirely objectifying. Sister of battle were a bad pun 25 years ago. Now they are with sone nice models.
This roughly covers my feelings on the whole "but SoB" argument. The only female-dominated faction in 40k is an order of religious zealots obsessed with burning and purging, with fairly sexualised armour designs. Yeah, they aren't as bad as certain other properties female characters but we also know GW can do fairly tasteful renditions of female armour seen with the Stormcast.
I think we all know the sexist jokes that go hand-in-hand with SoB ranging from "Bolter B " to ones a bit too vulgar for this forum.
It's great that GW is making more stories about them to try and get rid of the general ideas and give nuance to the faction but the SoB aren't exactly "role model" material.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/09 15:59:17
Sisters are considerably sexualized. Sure modern sister models are better than most super-heroines, or older sister models as a matter of fact (old Repentia were just awful). That doesn't necessarily mean SoB are bad. How women react to sexualized designs varies, some hate it, some roll with it, some like it (There are women that do like to flaunt their sexuality after all, nothing wrong with that). But they cannot be the only female representation.
BTW I do find it weird there are no codpieces in 40k armors. Historically, men did like to flaunt their sexuality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/09 16:18:13
I agree. It's even worse if you try to recognize the topos behind which the GW female presence is located:
- pious dogmatic and faithful (SoB)
- nuns with guns (SoB - admittedly, the "fully crazy fanatic" card in the army is covered by males)
- exotic Bdsm mistresses (DE)
- some gals who do not talk by definition (SoS - worth to remember that their male counterpart become Culexus instead...)
On the other hand, if we consider more sensible ranges we have:
- Necromunda and other specialist games.
- Genestealer Cults.
- maybe the Inquisitors are overall more equal?
Come on, it could be better. It should be better. It should have been better already half a decade ago.
A couple of more female models is good, but we're really far away from any decent and sensible standard... And some kulture shock like female SM I think will be a catalyst in this sense
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.
the_scotsman wrote: I mean they are...literally objects, it is a miniatures game, so you got it there for sure.
And I don't know. Sisters seem to be less objectified than...most female superheroes, for example. I know reaction from female hobbyists towards the female stormcast has been generally better than the reaction towards the new SoB, but basically 1 in every 2 40k cosplays you get people posting pictures of online is a sister of battle.
And they don't have high heels, that's just the one limited release finecast model based on the 2nd ed art. All the new design plastic sisters are wearing flat shoes. Their full suit of armor does include (fairly restrained, by general miniature industry standard) boobplate and a corset, that's true.
I don’t think that saying it’s not as bad as x or y is a valid defence. I’m not arguing to change sisters but don’t hold them up as a paragon for representation. I also doubt the cosplay community or those who host its pictures are a good barometer for objectification.
The fact is given a clean slate then GW do it very well. The stormcast models are great. Clearly women but clearly heroic and clearly stormcast.
Tyran wrote: Sisters are considerably sexualized. Sure modern sister models are better than most super-heroines, or older sister models as a matter of fact (old Repentia were just awful). That doesn't necessarily mean SoB are bad. How women react to sexualized designs varies, some hate it, some roll with it, some like it (There are women that do like to flaunt their sexuality after all, nothing wrong with that). But they cannot be the only female representation.
BTW I do find it weird there are no codpieces in 40k armors. Historically, men did like to flaunt their sexuality.
What's this?
"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!"
What exactly constitutes a woman?
In order to establish who needs representation I think we first need to agree on that definition because I'm confused on what people want. I.E If you spruce up a human full of growth hormone and steroids they will look like they are currently represented as far as I understand... So what exactly needs to change?
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 ? "
Argive wrote: What exactly constitutes a woman?
In order to establish who needs representation I think we first need to agree on that definition because I'm confused on what people want. I.E If you spruce up a human full of growth hormone and steroids they will look like they are currently represented as far as I understand... So what exactly needs to change?
Can somebody define woman for me?
What do you want, woman or female?
"Woman" is a gender. An individual's gender has no bearing on whether or not they fit sex classification A or B. However, women tend to have longer hair than men and that is a basic signifier of gender. There are of course other ways to show ones gender but considering SM all wear the same PA, fashion isn't exactly an option here.
"Female" is a biological sex that is defined by having different reproductive cells (gametes) to a male.
We know that male SM cannot reproduce so it stands to reason the same would apply to female SM. The gametes are still present from their formation of the child so removing the ability to reproduce does not stop the SM from being female.
Easy solution? Next wave of Primaris releases, change half the bare heads given in a kit to basically carbon copies of the female Stormcast and some of the SoB heads. Problem solved.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/09 22:40:20
Argive wrote: What exactly constitutes a woman?
In order to establish who needs representation I think we first need to agree on that definition because I'm confused on what people want. I.E If you spruce up a human full of growth hormone and steroids they will look like they are currently represented as far as I understand... So what exactly needs to change?
Can somebody define woman for me?
Wow. You are really reaching now.
The male SM heads look typically male. Not typical of a male pumped up on GH and testosterone, generally. So the female SM heads would just need to look typically female. There are some very good examples out there. Stormcast ones, new guard ones, 3rd party ones. They don’t need to be pigtails and big pouty lips if that’s what you’re thinking. Nor do they need to be masculine and overly effected by the hormones. The male ones aren’t so the female ones not. Don’t think it would hurt with the SM heads to have some androgynous ones where you can’t instantly tell if they are female or male. To represent the effects of the process. Just like there are some very squared jawed SM and some prettier ones (aka blood angels).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/09 23:18:32
That is a good point I forgot to add in my post. The gene-seed of a Chapter could have a hundred different effects on the looks of a SM. With the Blood Angels and their successors, it ranges from outright beauty in the guise of Sanguinius himself to a horrific pale-skinned, pointy-eared monster like a traditional vampire. Not to mention battle-scars and bionics that could change the entire shape of an SM's face.
Argive wrote: What exactly constitutes a woman? In order to establish who needs representation I think we first need to agree on that definition because I'm confused on what people want. I.E If you spruce up a human full of growth hormone and steroids they will look like they are currently represented as far as I understand... So what exactly needs to change?
Can somebody define woman for me?
What do you want, woman or female?
"Woman" is a gender. An individual's gender has no bearing on whether or not they fit sex classification A or B. However, women tend to have longer hair than men and that is a basic signifier of gender. There are of course other ways to show ones gender but considering SM all wear the same PA, fashion isn't exactly an option here.
"Female" is a biological sex that is defined by having different reproductive cells (gametes) to a male. We know that male SM cannot reproduce so it stands to reason the same would apply to female SM. The gametes are still present from their formation of the child so removing the ability to reproduce does not stop the SM from being female.
Easy solution? Next wave of Primaris releases, change half the bare heads given in a kit to basically carbon copies of the female Stormcast and some of the SoB heads. Problem solved.
I dont know you tell me which definition we need to use. Who are you advocating representation for ?
Female and a woman are two separate different things?
Do you need to be both woman and a female in order to deserve representation?
A woman has no bearing on their sex, so a woman is a woman because has long hair?
A female is female because of gametes - Why are gametes relevant to 40k? Why do you assume 40k humans have gametes?
According to your definition shrike is a woman because he has longer hair then uriel ventris?
Something seemed off, I wasn't sure about your definition so I did a quick google online. I assume google is up to date. The definition for woman is as follows according to the online dictionary:
This is incorrect according to UK law as its a hate crime. Just FYI - I am sharing this purely for reference.
How can you argue you want representation for women if you are not able to even define what a woman is?
Andykp wrote:
Argive wrote: What exactly constitutes a woman? In order to establish who needs representation I think we first need to agree on that definition because I'm confused on what people want. I.E If you spruce up a human full of growth hormone and steroids they will look like they are currently represented as far as I understand... So what exactly needs to change?
Can somebody define woman for me?
Wow. You are really reaching now.
The male SM heads look typically male. Not typical of a male pumped up on GH and testosterone, generally. So the female SM heads would just need to look typically female. There are some very good examples out there. Stormcast ones, new guard ones, 3rd party ones. They don’t need to be pigtails and big pouty lips if that’s what you’re thinking. Nor do they need to be masculine and overly effected by the hormones. The male ones aren’t so the female ones not. Don’t think it would hurt with the SM heads to have some androgynous ones where you can’t instantly tell if they are female or male. To represent the effects of the process. Just like there are some very squared jawed SM and some prettier ones (aka blood angels).
Excuse me? Don't we need to know and agree who we are trying to represent? I think you're the one doing the reaching... And your language comes off really exclusionary and transphobic. How can you say anything looks "typically female" without being exclusionary to the trans and non binary and gender fluid community or females who don't look "typically female". What exactly do you mean?
Why are you excluding women without hair or short hair? Are they not worthy or representation because they are not typically female? I don't see how that achieves representation.. You'd need a bald/bland head without any distinctive features no?
We have a member of our community who is trans, I'd need to ask her how she feels about this but not sure I want to bother her for the sake of an argument
Do their feelings not matter?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/10 00:03:35
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 ? "
I dont know you tell me which definition we need to use. Who are you advocating representation for ?
Female and a woman are two separate different things?
Do you need to be both woman and a female in order to deserve representation?
A woman has no bearing on their sex, so a woman is a woman because has long hair?
A female is female because of gametes - Why are gametes relevant to 40k? Why do you assume 40k humans have gametes?
According to your definition shrike is a woman because he has longer hair then uriel ventris?
Something seemed off, I wasn't sure about your definition so I did a quick google online. I assume google is up to date.
The definition for woman is as follows according to the online dictionary:
This is incorrect according to UK law as its a hate crime. Just FYI - I am sharing this purely for reference.
How can you argue you want representation for women if you are not able to even define what a woman is?
Good to see you didn't read what I said regarding gender and cherry-picked it to suit what your arguments were. I said one indicator of gender is hair length and yeah there are loads but when you stick 100 people in identical armour that has no features, the way you would determine masculinity or femininity would be through things like hair length or facial hair.
If you'd actually bothered to read the Wikipedia article beyond the first seven words, you'd have seen that it makes distinctions between sex and gender, even more so if you go into articles on sex and gender. Common vernacular tends to mix gender and sex to the point where most people don't actually know the difference between the two.
As for representation, most people identify by their gender be it man, woman, girl, boy, trans or cis. So how about you drop the stupid questions and argue in good faith.
Also, wt are you on about "its a hate crime"?
Spoiler:
Excuse me?
Don't we need to know and agree who we are trying to represent? I think you're the one doing the reaching... And your language comes off really exclusionary and transphobic. How can you say anything looks "typically female" without being exclusionary to the trans and non binary and gender fluid community or females who don't look "typically female". What exactly do you mean?
Why are you excluding women without hair or short hair? Are they not worthy or representation because they are not typically female?
I don't see how that achieves representation.. You'd need a bald/bland head without any distinctive features no?
We have a member of our community who is trans, I'd need to ask her how she feels about this but not sure I want to bother her for the sake of an argument
Do their feelings not matter?
Again you seem to have trouble actually reading what people write.
Andy specifically said that a female head didn't need to have thing like pigtails and pouty lips to look feminine and even suggested more androgynous designs as well to show those who don't fit into the masculine/feminine categories.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/10 00:22:16
I dont know you tell me which definition we need to use. Who are you advocating representation for ?
Female and a woman are two separate different things?
Do you need to be both woman and a female in order to deserve representation?
A woman has no bearing on their sex, so a woman is a woman because has long hair?
A female is female because of gametes - Why are gametes relevant to 40k? Why do you assume 40k humans have gametes?
According to your definition shrike is a woman because he has longer hair then uriel ventris?
Something seemed off, I wasn't sure about your definition so I did a quick google online. I assume google is up to date. The definition for woman is as follows according to the online dictionary:
This is incorrect according to UK law as its a hate crime. Just FYI - I am sharing this purely for reference.
How can you argue you want representation for women if you are not able to even define what a woman is?
Good to see you didn't read what I said regarding gender and cherry-picked it to suit what your arguments were. I said one indicator of gender is hair length and yeah there are loads but when you stick 100 people in identical armour that has no features, the way you would determine masculinity or femininity would be through things like hair length or facial hair. If you'd actually bothered to read the Wikipedia article beyond the first seven words, you'd have seen that it makes distinctions between sex and gender, even more so if you go into articles on sex and gender. Common vernacular tends to mix gender and sex to the point where most people don't actually know the difference between the two. As for representation, most people identify by their gender be it man, woman, girl, boy, trans or cis. So how about you drop the stupid questions and argue in good faith. Also, wt are you on about "its a hate crime"?
Spoiler:
Excuse me? Don't we need to know and agree who we are trying to represent? I think you're the one doing the reaching... And your language comes off really exclusionary and transphobic. How can you say anything looks "typically female" without being exclusionary to the trans and non binary and gender fluid community or females who don't look "typically female". What exactly do you mean?
Why are you excluding women without hair or short hair? Are they not worthy or representation because they are not typically female? I don't see how that achieves representation.. You'd need a bald/bland head without any distinctive features no?
We have a member of our community who is trans, I'd need to ask her how she feels about this but not sure I want to bother her for the sake of an argument
Do their feelings not matter?
Again you seem to have trouble actually reading what people write. Andy specifically said that a female head didn't need to have thing like pigtails and pouty lips to look feminine and even suggested more androgynous designs as well to show those who don't fit into the masculine/feminine categories.
What article? Its a definition of a word. Why are my questions stupid? I think they are perfectly valid for the discussion and the responses you gave. If you don't want to answer the questions or cant just say so.
Saying the definition for woman = "adult human female" can get you charged with a hate crime against the trans people... Some lady tried to put this up on bilboards and was reported for being part of hate group. Therefore I am under the assumption you are not allowed to use this in a public space. I don't need police coming around my house..
We are talking about aesthetic representation of a concept here. So you want an androgynous genderless sexless head in order to represent female/women to attract them to 40K?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/10 00:41:15
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 ? "
Someone who identifies as one.
For the purposes of inanimate toys, one would assume it is one that has been identified as one by the creators, and potentially with signifiers commonly associated with that identification.
For example - the Stormcast women, who are made of the same plastic as every other Stormcast, but are signified with traits commonly associated with the performativity of womanhood.
Argive wrote: I dont know you tell me which definition we need to use. Who are you advocating representation for ?
Female and a woman are two separate different things?
Yes, they are. We are advocating representation for women, and the performative appearance of that, because representation requires visibility.
According to your definition shrike is a woman because he has longer hair then uriel ventris?
No, because you just referred to Shrike with masc pronouns, and he is referred to by GW with masc pronouns. This, by definition, means he's not identified as a woman.
Something seemed off, I wasn't sure about your definition so I did a quick google online. I assume google is up to date.
The definition for woman is as follows according to the online dictionary:
This is incorrect according to UK law as its a hate crime. Just FYI - I am sharing this purely for reference.
Link is broken, can't see it. But I will say that online dictionary definitions are rarely correct with modern gender understandings, in general.
How can you argue you want representation for women if you are not able to even define what a woman is?
I can point at the ostensible women in the Stormcast lineup and say "I want that" though.
Now why is that a problem?
Excuse me?
Don't we need to know and agree who we are trying to represent?
Well first, that would require you to say that you care for representation, which you haven't yet.
So I'd like to see you make it very clear that you *do* believe representation is important.
And your language comes off really exclusionary and transphobic. How can you say anything looks "typically female" without being exclusionary to the trans and non binary and gender fluid community or females who don't look "typically female". What exactly do you mean?
In regards to gender performativity, they are being quite accurate.
Womanhood, like all genders, is entirely constructed, but constructed based off of understood performed actions and behaviours. These performed actions and behaviours can be accepted and rejected on an individual basis, but there are commonly accepted performative traits that lend more strongly to one than another. However, yes, a woman does not need to look "female" to be a woman. However, admitting that there is a performative standard is not "exclusionary and transphobic". What *is* exclusionary is making up excuses why women can't be Space Marines, but I don't see you complaining.
Why are you excluding women without hair or short hair? Are they not worthy or representation because they are not typically female?
I don't see how that achieves representation.. You'd need a bald/bland head without any distinctive features no?
As you brought up bald heads, I'd like to direct you to the bald heads on the Sisters sprue, and how, despite being bald, are still noticeably feminine, and even more distinctly different from the very masculine bald heads of the Space Marines. Even without hair, they are built with very different performative signifiers.
I think the point I'm getting at is that Space Marines all use masculine pronouns, and all have masculine features. They are, ostensibly, all men. And, if some were to use feminine pronouns, that would be a form of representation - but without also including feminine featured faces (and for this, I refer to Stormcast women, who are very much identifiable as such without looking fragile or any weaker than their male counterparts), this representation is shallow. The representation I ask for should cover enough to provide heads, between the masculine existing ones, and the feminine proposed ones, so that any Space Marines could go by any assigned pronoun, and have a physical appearance equally as varied, if the creator so wanted it.
So, for example, I would actually lend towards feminine faces for my Blood Angels, even if they used masculine pronouns.
Do their feelings not matter?
Funny, I seem to remember you saying that feelings didn't matter? When was your change of heart? Would you care to amend your previous comments regarding lore being more important than representation?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: What article? Its a definition of a word.
Saying the definition for woman = "adult human female" can get you charged with a hate crime against the trans people... Some lady tried to put this up on bilboards and was reported for being part of hate group.
Definitions aren't always correct, and yeah, "woman = adult human female" is an incorrect definition under modern understanding. Just so we get that cleared up.
We are talking about aesthetic representation of a concept here.
So you want an androgynous genderless sexless head in order to represent female/women to attract them to 40K?
Nope - just copy what the Stormcast got, and we're pretty good to go. Let people use the heads that they feel suit their characters most appropriately, be that more androgynous heads, more masculine heads (that we have a dearth of already), or feminine ones.
After all, variety is the spice of life.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/10 00:43:08
To summarise, in order to achieve the objective of satisfing the representation criteria you need:
1. Pronouns, 2. An aesthetic representation of "not masculine - I will know it when I see it"(please clarify this as I'm not sure how to describe this) of the head of the marine.
Is that accurate ?
But Storm casts are not humans pumped full of Genehanced pseudo science cocktail of hormones/bio stuff. Why would storm casts look the same as marines?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/10 00:48:10
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 ? "
Saying the definition for woman = "adult human female" can get you charged with a hate crime against the trans people... Some lady tried to put this up on bilboards and was reported for being part of hate group.
We are talking about aesthetic representation of a concept here.
So you want an androgynous genderless sexless head in order to represent female/women to attract them to 40K?
You can't take everything as its dictionary definition chief. As I explained in the post, common vernacular mixes gender and sex to the point of irritating irrelevance.
Have you got evidence for the incident you describe, preferably a news article from a company that isn't dedicated to clickbait nonsense? If she was part of a hate group then I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that was why they were reported.
Again, read what I said regarding the way female SM would be represented. The FW Stormcast upgrades are a perfect example of how GW could do this.
TBH I'm done having arguments with you when you clearly have no intention of either reading what I have posted nor answering with actual responses describing your position on the matter.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/10 00:49:22
issue that shouldn't have to be explained every 3 days because someone didn't actually read the thread.
Eldar- 4436 pts
