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.

 Argive wrote:
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 ?

No. Both, at the same time.

In order to achieve the "objective", just do what GW did with the Stormcast lore and heads. It's that simple. Not one and/or the other, both.

I never said I dotn care about peoples feelings. i said I don't care about the feelings of people that are not part of my community, insult me or actively try to damage me or things I care about. I think I made that pretty clear the last time.

 Argive wrote:
I never said I dotn care about peoples feelings. i said I don't care about the feelings of people that are not part of my community, insult me or actively try to damage me or things I care about. I think I made that pretty clear the last time.

What part of me is:
Not part of your community? What do you see as your "community"? Anyone who you can conveniently ignore and dismiss because you can't see them?
Insulting you, by asking for women Space Marines?
Damaging anything by including women Space Marines? And before you say it, how is the lore damaged by women Space Marines - why is that an issue? Or more importantly, why does the lore come before a person?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I never said I dotn care about peoples feelings. i said I don't care about the feelings of people that are not part of my community, insult me or actively try to damage me or things I care about. I think I made that pretty clear the last time.

What part of me is:
Not part of your community?
Insulting you, by asking for women Space Marines?
Damaging anything by including women Space Marines?

I don’t want to be part of his community.

He has no argument, he has no basis for his opposition that he is willing to write on here. He just continues to run around misrepresenting, misquoting and misdirecting things. And claim to have a complete lack of empathy for anyone not part of “his” community it a pretty grim state of affairs.

Andykp wrote:
And claim to have a complete lack of empathy for anyone not part of “his” community it a pretty grim state of affairs.

This especially - outright admitting not to care about people they have "Othered" is frankly alarming.

Andykp wrote:
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.

This, incidentally, jives with my approach to assembling drukhari; within the general theme of the unit (helmets, half-masks, bare heads, yea or nay to bayonets, etc. to aid in visual squad identificalion) I randomise head to body pairings in the interests of not "doing" gender per human socialisation.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And claim to have a complete lack of empathy for anyone not part of “his” community it a pretty grim state of affairs.

This especially - outright admitting not to care about people they have "Othered" is frankly alarming.

Pretty sorry state of affairs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Catulle wrote:

Andykp wrote:
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.

This, incidentally, jives with my approach to assembling drukhari; within the general theme of the unit (helmets, half-masks, bare heads, yea or nay to bayonets, etc. to aid in visual squad identificalion) I randomise head to body pairings in the interests of not "doing" gender per human socialisation.

That makes perfect sense to me.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And claim to have a complete lack of empathy for anyone not part of “his” community it a pretty grim state of affairs.

This especially - outright admitting not to care about people they have "Othered" is frankly alarming.

What's alarming is your continual LYING about how this is not a political discussion whenever exposed.
You keep REPEATDLY say "ohh saying women exist is political ?".

As if a single person in this thread said women don't exist... That's such a bald face faced misrepresentation of peoples comments, how do you expect anyone to care what you have to say if that's your counter argument or take you seriously?

What I and other have argued is that this is inherently a political discussion because the suggested premise is that:
Popular Male SM = Mysoginy enabling and sexism gatekeeping in 40k.

The only way that statement can be true is 40k Male SM is part of the patriarchal structure which holds women back on purpose somehow and therefore needs to be attacked.
WHICH IS AN OVERTLY POLITICAL FEMINIST POSITION.

And that's a good enough reason to keep it as it is. And keep political and ideological agendas out of 40k.
The premise that EVERYTHING is sexist homophobic and racist is simply not true... Because otherwise my Nans farm would have to be sexist..

People have repeatedly told you nobody cares about what's between players legs, or what you choose to do with your models.

People have repeatedly said why they don't think the status Quo needs changing

People like the way the things are for a myriad of reasons which always boils down to "ohh well and don't give me the me the lore crap" and "ohh thats not a good reason". I'm sorry I don't know what else to tell you.. Some people like it so much they have been buying models for 40k for night on 25+ years.. Some people dont. Which is fair enough.

Nobody at all in this entire thread has said that making female space marines is bad if that's what you want to do.

Some have pointed out that if you do, its against current convention... so naturally not everyone is going to like that. You seem oblivious probably purposefully to the fact that conventions matter to people or people give them weight. Just like putting my eldar on raprots will be against convention as opposed to jet bikes and some people will have issues with that.

Nobody in this entire thread said they don't want female gamers in the hobby or that they wish harm on anybody

Solutions and compromises were offered which would be both beneficial to the hobby and result in more representation which would be more readily accepted. If you are unable to compromise then how is this a debate or a discussion rather than a gunshot hold up ?

You have actively turned this into a political culture war.
This thread has divided people, made people resent each other, block each other and just generly fostered a very very very bad experience.
Do you think any of these good people will not remember each other on other topics?

So I'd say you are doing a very good job of damaging the thing I care about which is the space, hobby and general spirit of community.
So why should I care about your feelings?

Ultimately I don't even know why you are stoking this argument on forum.
If this is such a deep personal issue to you, perhaps you should write to GW and ask for them to include Storm Cast heads with SM boxes so that people can build SM as females and they need to have SM use correct inclusive pronouns.

I wish you luck in your venture.

If GW decides this will make them money they will do it.

 Argive wrote:


What's alarming is your continual LYING about how this is not a political discussion whenever exposed.
You keep REPEATDLY say "ohh saying women exist is political ?".

Why don't you do us a favor and define for us what is a political discussion for you.

And just fyi, even if you consider this a political discussion does not make the concern raised any less valid. If you want an entirely apolitical hobby, you picked the wrong one that was based on satire that outright mocks tropes from the 80's and 90's.

 Argive wrote:

As if a single person in this thread said women don't exist... That's such a bald face faced misrepresentation of peoples comments, how do you expect anyone to care what you have to say if that's your counter argument or take you seriously?

Women don't exist in the Space Marine lineup. Women models barely exist in the hobby as a whole. Women are barely acknowledged in the marketing or any media associated with the property. The primary army in the hobby that may as well be the entire hobby has been specifically stated to be a boys only club.

And there is a large subset of people in the hobby that will lie, cheat, steal, and screech like harpies at the idea that GW open up Space Marines to include women.

 Argive wrote:

What I and other have argued is that this is inherently a political discussion because the suggested premise is that:
Popular Male SM = Mysoginy enabling and sexism gatekeeping in 40k.

The discussion is that some people want women in the astartes, and the counter discussion is NO YOU CAN'T BECAUSE REASONS.

And all the reasons listed are stupid. All people are wanting is a head sprue change and acknowledgement in canon that women space marines exist so that backward grognards can't whine at them that "you're not following the lore!"

Imagine walking into GW five years ago as a girl and wanting to start an army that looked like you. If you wanted an army that was predominantly female, your only choice is the SoB, who at the time were expensive, had 20+ year old models, and probably on the verge of getting squatted. Your other choice is evil rape elves that exist literally to inflict as much pain and torment in the galaxy as possible. Even now, your choices are between religious extremists and space BDSM elves. It would be very much doubtful that you would start the hobby. To which I imagine your thoughts are that it's a good thing and that girls should only play 40k as long as it's by your rules.

 Argive wrote:

The only way that statement can be true is 40k Male SM is part of the patriarchal structure which holds women back on purpose somehow and therefore needs to be attacked.
WHICH IS AN OVERTLY POLITICAL FEMINIST POSITION.

Space Marines are, by far, the largest part of the 40k hobby. By having it specifically male only, that's sending quite a message to anyone that wants to play it, doesn't it? By having such a minor change argued against so stringently without actually having grounds to argue on sends an even stronger message about the kinds of people we'll find in the hobby too.

 Argive wrote:

And that's a good enough reason to keep it as it is. And keep political and ideological agendas out of 40k.
The premise that EVERYTHING is sexist homophobic and racist is simply not true... Because otherwise my Nans farm would have to be sexist..

I'd like to point out that there was a time not too long ago that your Nan wouldn't be able to own a farm because women couldn't own property. The reason she can? Because of those evil bleeding heart progressives. Y'know, the sort of people that would look at a predominantly male hobby, see requests from a sizeable minority asking for equal representation, and at the very least thinking, wow, this will effect me in absolutely no way but if it makes other people feel better, let's do it.

 Argive wrote:

People have repeatedly told you nobody cares about what's between players legs, or what you choose to do with your models.

And yet, you clearly do. There doesn't seem to be a single case of someone posting converted female marines without *someone* going BUT AWKSHOALLY.

 Argive wrote:

People have repeatedly said why they don't think the status Quo needs changing

The status quo has already changed. The status quo will continue to change. GW gives zero gak about the integrity of the lore except inasmuch as it generates profits. I wonder why some people are willing to swallow primaris, necron rewrites, and so on, but will absolutely die on the hill of space marines with a long hair sprue.

 Argive wrote:

People like the way the things are for a myriad of reasons which always boils down to "ohh well and don't give me the me the lore crap" and "ohh thats not a good reason". I'm sorry I don't know what else to tell you..

Then maybe you should be honest? Just say that you don't want women space marines, and no amount of logic or appeals to basic human decency will change your desire to say no to people who want to be represented without harassment.

 Argive wrote:

Nobody at all in this entire thread has said that making female space marines is bad if that's what you want to do.

You've literally just said that wanting female astartes is a political discussion with all the vitriol of a right wing stereotype.

 Argive wrote:

Some have pointed out that if you do, its against current convention... so naturally not everyone is going to like that. You seem oblivious probably purposefully to the fact that conventions matter to people or people give them weight. Just like putting my eldar on raprots will be against convention as opposed to jet bikes and some people will have issues with that.

Yes, and one of the asks is to make it conventional so that no one can complain about the specific existence of female space marines.

Also, no clue what raprots are.

 Argive wrote:

Nobody in this entire thread said they don't want female gamers in the hobby or that they wish harm on anybody

But they're strongly implying it.

 Argive wrote:

Solutions and compromises were offered which would be both beneficial to the hobby and result in more representation which would be more readily accepted. If you are unable to compromise then how is this a debate or a discussion rather than a gunshot hold up ?

"Go to your corner and accept whatever scraps you're thrown" is neither a solution nor a compromise.

Although I like scotsman's idea of making every other 40k release female, including orks, necrons, and tyranids, to balance out the 100% male representation that is the space marines.

 Argive wrote:

You have actively turned this into a political culture war.
This thread has divided people, made people resent each other, block each other and just generly fostered a very very very bad experience.
Do you think any of these good people will not remember each other on other topics?

"Won't somebody please think of the children?!"

Let's turn this around. Let's say that this is a political discussion and a social issue and for the sake of discussion, that there's only two sides: pro female space marines and anti female space marines. I don't know about you, but if I was taking a social position and I happened to notice on my side that it included all of the misogynists, bigots, and so on, I might re-examine my position and what I was really asking for.

 Argive wrote:

So I'd say you are doing a very good job of damaging the thing I care about which is the space, hobby and general spirit of community.
So why should I care about your feelings?

So a head sprue and thirteen words from thirty years ago is where you draw the line. So you'll stop treating people like people if they insist that the primary faction include equal representation for all genders instead of being an uninviting boys club?

Such a change wouldn't actually impact your ability to play the hobby, and if your enjoyment hinges on male-only space marines to the detriment of others, I ask you why should anyone care about your feelings if you're that self-centered?

 Argive wrote:

Ultimately I don't even know why you are stoking this argument on forum.

Probably the same reason you are--because they feel strongly about including women among space marines because it sends a message about this hobby. It's unfortunate that you're taking the stance to exclude women from being represented by default from 50% of the hobby, which also sends a message.

 Argive wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Argive wrote:
What exactly constitutes a woman?

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.

I never said I dotn care about peoples feelings. i said I don't care about the feelings of people that are not part of my community, insult me or actively try to damage me or things I care about. I think I made that pretty clear the last time.

You have summed up my feelings pretty concisely and precisely. When a group bases itself on hating me or people and things i love and essentially utterly disempowering meand people i care for in all ways I tend to say nasty things about them.

So I wrote this whole multiparagraph thing trying to give some of the opposition an out for clinging overmuch to the perceived integrity of an escapist fantasy world rather than necessarily being outright bigoted - and let's face it, recently there's been a lot of reason to want to cling to an escapist fantasy, even if it's a galaxy where genocide is more common than unscarred faces - but then I read Argive's post.

This is a complete misunderstanding of what politics is and what it needs to stay out of. The *lack* of female representation is itself a political statement, because 40K is a living setting still being commercially sold by a major company with a thousand hands on the wheel that has happily undergone dozens of retcons since its Rogue Trader days, and recently had the perfect excuse to include them in evolving lore via the Primaris Marines, and still utterly failed to do so in an ostensibly modern time. THAT is a political statement.

Every day that women do not exist in the Space Marines (and the Imperium is not explicitly and repeatedly called out on this fact being an example of the Imperium being an archaic theocratic backwards misogynistic shithole) then even if this is not what GW means to say, they ultimately do say "We need to keep women out of the core part of our manly hobby of playing acrylic dressup with overpriced plastic spacemen." And - again, even if this is not what you mean to say, it is what you say when you say that shouldn't change.

Altima wrote:
[…]

 Argive wrote:

What I and other have argued is that this is inherently a political discussion because the suggested premise is that:
Popular Male SM = Mysoginy enabling and sexism gatekeeping in 40k.

The discussion is that some people want women in the astartes, and the counter discussion is NO YOU CAN'T BECAUSE REASONS.

And all the reasons listed are stupid. All people are wanting is a head sprue change and acknowledgement in canon that women space marines exist so that backward grognards can't whine at them that "you're not following the lore!"
[…]

Actually it is the opposite: the "misogynist faction" has already (and pretty well) stated that the main reason against the creation of the female space marines is that is a not necessary change, hoped only for ideological reasons (a fight against a supposed misogyny culture among the W40k players) and the only apparently rational reason used to justify this "moral crusade" (more representation means more female players) is totally deceptive. In fact, not only in the comic industry a higher number of female main characters didn't increase the number of female readers, but the yaoi manga is a genre which talk only about stories of homosexual men reads almost exclusively by heterosexual female readers.
So it would be only fair if the "pro-female space marines faction" stop this tiresome habit to decide what the other faction think, accordingly with their prejudices on it; it doesn't help this discussion and the reciprocal understanding.

I think female space marines opens up a huge world of possibilities to explore-to the ones that are attached to space marines being male only, we have the unique opportunity for your male exclusive chapter to explore why it is actually male exclusive in a meaningful and characteristic way. Are they misogynists? Traditionalists? An actual fraternity, choosing to exclude women for a feeling of brotherhood?

Is your chapter a coed chapter, and does it strip them of their gender? Does it forcibly assign a gender identity? Is your chapter libertarian with gender identity? Is it conservative with gender identity?

Is your chapter perhaps patriarchal or matriarchal?

Is your chapter even exclusively female? Is this perhaps shaped by the politics or culture of the system/planet that they draw their recruits from?

Gender identity in various cultures can vary wildly, and cultures in space marine chapters can be equally diverse. That alone is a wonderful and exceptionally deep reason to include women in space marine chapters. It also gives the gender of space marines actual meaning, as well as the anti-female space marine crowd all sorts of tools to keep what they are attached to. Having an all male space marine chapter would mean WAY more if it was so in a universe where that isn't necessarily the case, and gives the opportunity for your chapter being all male actual meaning to their identity. I think that is awesome.

Yes, it absolutely singles them out, because they're popular, because representation is nothing without visibility.

Representation needs to happen, I agree. And I also agree that it would be cool to see female marines. But, as it stands, the lore would have to change for that to happen, which again isn't a bad thing. I'm not against the result here.

I am against the reasoning. Female marines should be added because that would be a cool thing to add. Retconning the fluff to let it happen, or even having it as a recent development, all perfectly acceptable in my book. But adding female marines just to make the hobby seem more open to women? I'm sorry, but this smacks of "we added girls so now girls can play".

Perhaps the problem is less that marines have no women, and is instead that women think that this is a reason not to play?

There's also no logical reason that female marines shouldn't be possible in the first place.

It's written into the fluff. There's no logical reason why Orks should be masculine either, but no-one's asking for female orks. That would probably kick up a far larger storm of anti-fluff then space marines. But I digress from the point - the reason why the fictional space marines are the way they are is because it was how they were written. They are no more than the sum of their lore, that's all they are. So what the lore says is, infallably, what they are. But I'm not adverse to changing or adding to that lore, only to the reasons behind doing so.

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*.

It's not accurate to include women in an army which has established lore describing why, with utter absolution, they are all men, always. Yes, women make up 50% of the population, but the fictional population of Astartes is 100% men, because they can't or don't make women. Saying "make half the marines women for accuracy" is exactly like saying "make half the WW1 soldiers women for accuracy". Half the people were women, all the soldiers were men. Same deal with marines, with the current fluff. So "accuracy" is the opposite of an argument for female marines.

So one page from one comic means no adding representation ever. Ok.

Wow, those words tumbled out of my mouth so fast I didn't even realise I was saying them.

Yes, add women to the game. Female guard models, and female marine models, and anywhere else it will make sense to add them. Retcon the fluff to make it realistic - but do it because it will add to the game, not so that you can wave around a new chapter of pink armoured long haired space marines and say "now gurlz can play too!". That's just insulting.

Take that comic. They could have made Thor a woman and then had her kicking ass like being a woman made no difference, which it shouldn't, and they would have improved the comic for being some cool stuff going on. Instead, they tried to pander to the women of the world and were all like "oh no, let's not fight because we respect you for being a woman, we'll come quietly because you're sooooo brave for being a woman and doing all this whilst being a woman", and the comic became appalling.


I want to see female marines. But I want to see them in a grim dark setting, being gritty and realistic, taking one everything that the men do without any fuss. It needs to be a change they make without remark. I don't want to see banners saying "now with female marines!". I just want to see them start appearing in the pictures and in the stores. I don't want to see any female marines getting "girl treatment" in the stories (unless it's someone saying "ignore her, she's just a woman" before she literally rips his head off).



TL;DR: Female marines, hell yes. Slapping it everywhere like it's a big deal, and doing it just so women can play 40k, hell no.

So, let me summarize, we all agree female marine should be there, we're are simply disagreeing about the "motivations" behind the change????

...but then it's perfectly fine! We all agreed! Rejoice and hails to the Dakkadakka miracle!

Because, really, motivation are almost entirely irrelevant. Practical and factual consequences are what we should care about.
Motivation are, at best, an alleviating or aggravating factor (but bear no importance whatsoever on the topic itself). A killing is a killing both if it's homicide or manslaughter.
A discrimination is a discrimination both if it has historical reasons, or political ones.

People intentions are always irrelevant. Good people do terrible thing with good motivations: what they do is are bad anyway. And the opposite is true too (bad people that do good things for bad reasons).

There are only facts, and your interpretation of them. But the second element is eminently private, it is worth something only for you: it's not the job of the world or other people to reconcile what you believe or understand with reality: it's you own.

That's why a few pages ago I've written that I don't give a gak about what your ideas are (notes: other in the topic seems genuinely interested to understand).
The point is that something could be better: let's make it better.
In my mind the same goes other ways: I won't include female Marine to empower people the need representation, I would include them BECAUSE THE EXCLUSION DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Even if not a single woman will play WH40K thanks to that, it's the right thing to do anyway.

Whatever the "motivation" are, whatever faction you ascribe yourself to, we've all ONLY something to gain adding female Marines.
Because even if you want to keep you marine boys club (like I keep the Primaris put of my collection), that's an ADDITION to the hobby, not a subtraction (as macluvin clearly descrive above).


[You may also have noticed that I won't ever purchase a female Marine. That's a fact, because GW will only produce Primaris, and I don't care about them and don't want them. But that's not a reason to stop other having good things...]

 Cybtroll wrote:
So, let me summarize, we all agree female marine should be there, we're are simply disagreeing about the "motivations" behind the change????

...but then it's perfectly fine! We all agreed! Rejoice and hails to the Dakkadakka miracle!

Because, really, motivation are almost entirely irrelevant. Practical and factual consequences are what we should care about.
Motivation are, at best, an alleviating or aggravating factor (but bear no importance whatsoever on the topic itself). A killing is a killing both if it's homicide or manslaughter.
A discrimination is a discrimination both if it has historical reasons, or political ones.

People intentions are always irrelevant. Good people do terrible thing with good motivations: what they do is are bad anyway. And the opposite is true too (bad people that do good things for bad reasons).

There are only facts, and your interpretation of them. But the second element is eminently private, it is worth something only for you: it's not the job of the world or other people to reconcile what you believe or understand with reality: it's you own.

That's why a few pages ago I've written that I don't give a gak about what your ideas are (notes: other in the topic seems genuinely interested to understand).
The point is that something could be better: let's make it better.
In my mind the same goes other ways: I won't include female Marine to empower people the need representation, I would include them BECAUSE THE EXCLUSION DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Even if not a single woman will play WH40K thanks to that, it's the right thing to do anyway.

Whatever the "motivation" are, whatever faction you ascribe yourself to, we've all ONLY something to gain adding female Marines.
Because even if you want to keep you marine boys club (like I keep the Primaris put of my collection), that's an ADDITION to the hobby, not a subtraction (as macluvin clearly descrive above).


[You may also have noticed that I won't ever purchase a female Marine. That's a fact, because GW will only produce Primaris, and I don't care about them and don't want them. But that's not a reason to stop other having good things...]

Actually there are 3 things to consider:

Whether to do it - we all agree that we should.

Why to do it - as you said, this is personal, but it impacts the third thing

How to do it. This is the issue to me.

The driving force in this thread is saying "We need to make female marines so women can play the game without feeling excluded". That is a good reason to do it, but the concern is how this is implemented. The Why drives the How, and the How matters a lot.

If they just add female marines, and make no song or dance about it, just adjust the lore, add them, and then include them in advertising, then that will be perfect. They will probably attract women who think they can't play because the marines are all men, if such women exist, and hopefully will improve the vibe of GW stores (I took that on board when someone posted it, and I hadn't thought of it like that, IE that all male models would make women seem more of a rare thing to the hobbyists. I can see the truth there).

If they add female marines and then say "introducing the all new GIRL MARINES! Everyone look, now girls can play too! We've even added a special all-girl unit to this thing!" Then this would be an appalling thing. Imagine this same approach, but instead of "Girls" you replace it with any race, or any sexuality? See how it becomes a serious problem?



Whilst I stand by that changing the lore just to include female marines just so that women don't feel like this all-male race of super soldiers who are all male for reasons in the fluff is ostracizing them, the reason, as you say, is private. As long as they don't make the change in a way that screams this, then it's not a problem. We've already changed the fluff to let them make new machines, make new primaris, upgrade heroes to primaris, and so forth. Adding female marines is no stretch in the fluff - but the justification that comes across from doing so matters.

 some bloke wrote:

 Cybtroll wrote:
So, let me summarize, we all agree female marine should be there, we're are simply disagreeing about the "motivations" behind the change????

...but then it's perfectly fine! We all agreed! Rejoice and hails to the Dakkadakka miracle!

Because, really, motivation are almost entirely irrelevant. Practical and factual consequences are what we should care about.
Motivation are, at best, an alleviating or aggravating factor (but bear no importance whatsoever on the topic itself). A killing is a killing both if it's homicide or manslaughter.
A discrimination is a discrimination both if it has historical reasons, or political ones.

People intentions are always irrelevant. Good people do terrible thing with good motivations: what they do is are bad anyway. And the opposite is true too (bad people that do good things for bad reasons).

There are only facts, and your interpretation of them. But the second element is eminently private, it is worth something only for you: it's not the job of the world or other people to reconcile what you believe or understand with reality: it's you own.

That's why a few pages ago I've written that I don't give a gak about what your ideas are (notes: other in the topic seems genuinely interested to understand).
The point is that something could be better: let's make it better.
In my mind the same goes other ways: I won't include female Marine to empower people the need representation, I would include them BECAUSE THE EXCLUSION DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Even if not a single woman will play WH40K thanks to that, it's the right thing to do anyway.

Whatever the "motivation" are, whatever faction you ascribe yourself to, we've all ONLY something to gain adding female Marines.
Because even if you want to keep you marine boys club (like I keep the Primaris put of my collection), that's an ADDITION to the hobby, not a subtraction (as macluvin clearly descrive above).


[You may also have noticed that I won't ever purchase a female Marine. That's a fact, because GW will only produce Primaris, and I don't care about them and don't want them. But that's not a reason to stop other having good things...]

Actually there are 3 things to consider:

Whether to do it - we all agree that we should.

Why to do it - as you said, this is personal, but it impacts the third thing

How to do it. This is the issue to me.

The driving force in this thread is saying "We need to make female marines so women can play the game without feeling excluded". That is a good reason to do it, but the concern is how this is implemented. The Why drives the How, and the How matters a lot.

If they just add female marines, and make no song or dance about it, just adjust the lore, add them, and then include them in advertising, then that will be perfect. They will probably attract women who think they can't play because the marines are all men, if such women exist, and hopefully will improve the vibe of GW stores (I took that on board when someone posted it, and I hadn't thought of it like that, IE that all male models would make women seem more of a rare thing to the hobbyists. I can see the truth there).

If they add female marines and then say "introducing the all new GIRL MARINES! Everyone look, now girls can play too! We've even added a special all-girl unit to this thing!" Then this would be an appalling thing. Imagine this same approach, but instead of "Girls" you replace it with any race, or any sexuality? See how it becomes a serious problem?



Whilst I stand by that changing the lore just to include female marines just so that women don't feel like this all-male race of super soldiers who are all male for reasons in the fluff is ostracizing them, the reason, as you say, is private. As long as they don't make the change in a way that screams this, then it's not a problem. We've already changed the fluff to let them make new machines, make new primaris, upgrade heroes to primaris, and so forth. Adding female marines is no stretch in the fluff - but the justification that comes across from doing so matters.

Look at how they added female stormcast. Wave 1, all male. Wave 2 female. Females in the fluff, female named characters. No muss, no fuss, no need to cuss. Now 40K is a bit trickier in that some hang on to ancient and irrelevant fluff. I personally would be happy to have it happen with no talk of fluff. It’s just always been that way you just didn’t notice. They have done this before with marines when adding new units and no one batted an eyelid. But I think it would end being addressed. Simple way is primaris can be women. Done.

I would love to see the geek rage if they said that when marines crossed the rubicon some came out the other end as girls. There would be some angry incels out there if they made their fave named character a girl.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

Actually it is the opposite: the "misogynist faction" has already (and pretty well) stated that the main reason against the creation of the female space marines is that is a not necessary change, hoped only for ideological reasons (a fight against a supposed misogyny culture among the W40k players) and the only apparently rational reason used to justify this "moral crusade" (more representation means more female players) is totally deceptive. In fact, not only in the comic industry a higher number of female main characters didn't increase the number of female readers, but the yaoi manga is a genre which talk only about stories of homosexual men reads almost exclusively by heterosexual female readers.
So it would be only fair if the "pro-female space marines faction" stop this tiresome habit to decide what the other faction think, accordingly with their prejudices on it; it doesn't help this discussion and the reciprocal understanding.

People who have been pandered to for literal decades think everything is just fine the way it is. I think you're proving my point. But keep going, I almost have reactionary bingo.

You might think everything is fine the way it is, other people disagree. And frankly, they have better arguments than you, since your arguments boil down to the 'lore' (that's always changing in significant sweeps eg primaris), that it's always been this way (it hasn't), or now that it won't increase the number of people who play warhammer because comics have women in them and female readers only make up 20-40% of the comic market, so feth all the people who want female space marines because women aren't buying a product that purposely goes out of its way to look like a boys' club? It may increase women playing 40k, it might not, but marketing supports that if you market to a demographic, there's a better chance of pulling them in--AoS doesn't even market to women, just includes them in their models and have more women playing there than 40k.

Regardless of what you think, people are asking for this change. People want this change. A lot of people don't care about it but realize it's not going to affect them either way, but aren't going to go out of their way to say that they disagree with it.

Here is an article from 2018:

When asked about women playing, Bays explained he would love to see more women playing, explaining that the skills learned in tabletop games are easily transferred to other areas. He touched on how to get women involved as well, explaining that one way would be to promote more female centric armies like the Sisters of Battle.

“This isn’t a boy’s club,” he said. “We always welcome girls in and we always invite them to play. If guys’ girlfriends or anyone come in, we always try to get them involved as well. We do demo games all the time where everyone is welcome to come and play. It falls more on the gamers getting interest in females that they know or friends that they have who are girls to start looking at it.”

Bays also explained that women tend to be better at painting the models themselves, explaining that some of the best painters he knows are female.

Iliea Roe, a long time hobby enthusiast who has painted and played Warhammer for over five years, offered very insightful commentary on both the Warhammer community and the tabletop community as a whole.

“You want to see models that look like you, so there really weren't any if you were a female and having someone say ‘well you could play Sisters of Battle,’”

Roe said.

She said that at the time, the Sisters of Battle were barely supported, and while most armies moved over to plastic, sisters were still outdated metal models only available online.

“It’s this huge hurtle for one army where as a female you felt represented in Warhammer 40,000,” she said.

Now, if Space Marines had female representation, do you think that this person might have had a different take on the situation?

Don't answer that; I'll just post the rest of the article.

Roe also explained the issue with sexualization in models in Warhammer Fantasy and Age of Sigmar, explaining that while she and a lot of women don’t have an issue with it, they don’t want it to be the only option.

“They want to see Paladin Women, and now Stormcast Eternals…the largest army in Age of Sigmar now has female Stormcast,” she said.

According to Roe, the new coreset for Age of Sigmar will be the first time they have released a core set with female models in it, adding that because a lot of armies were male centric, being the odd one out tends to lead to intimidation. She said it “takes more women to get more women in the hobby.”

She specifically calls out the exact situation in AoS that we're discussing here. The largest product for AoS was only men which led to feelings of under representation and discomfort which disappeared once the second wave showed up and included women in the army.

Itd be really tough to narratively justify adding female astartes, too. you'd probably need some kind of major catastrophe happening in the universe, stretching the lines of the astartes thin, multiple iconic chapters getting decimated as well as the populations on their recruiting worlds. You'd also want to have it coincide with some major technological changes in the makeup of astartes, and a change in the leadership of the imperium as a whole - maybe like, one of the primarchs could return and start trying to bring the imperium out of its millennia long decay, maybe he could instate a woman as a high lord of terra, someone who knows and respects the power of women on the battlefield and might be able to convince the rest of the group that exapnding the recruitment pool for astartes by 100% would be beneficial to the imperium overall.

I'm just like, speculating though, obviously this is a lot of wild stuff that is unlikely to happen.

Anyway i'm typing this through a sort of wibbly time portal so I figured I'd ask - what year is it for y'all? for me it's 2015, how does the rest of the decade turn out?

 Argive wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And claim to have a complete lack of empathy for anyone not part of “his” community it a pretty grim state of affairs.

This especially - outright admitting not to care about people they have "Othered" is frankly alarming.

What's alarming is your continual LYING about how this is not a political discussion whenever exposed.

Because it's not political. End of story.

You keep REPEATDLY say "ohh saying women exist is political ?".

As if a single person in this thread said women don't exist... That's such a bald face faced misrepresentation of peoples comments, how do you expect anyone to care what you have to say if that's your counter argument or take you seriously?

No. But y'all are saying that including women is political. Why?

What I and other have argued is that this is inherently a political discussion because the suggested premise is that:
Popular Male SM = Mysoginy enabling and sexism gatekeeping in 40k.

The only way that statement can be true is 40k Male SM is part of the patriarchal structure which holds women back on purpose somehow and therefore needs to be attacked.
WHICH IS AN OVERTLY POLITICAL FEMINIST POSITION.

You're not reading my comments then. I'm going to bother repeating them once more here, as you're clearly not discussing this in good faith.

Being male is fine. Being the flagship, and being all male is not, and contributes to a sense that "male = default".

And that's a good enough reason to keep it as it is. And keep political and ideological agendas out of 40k.

You're about 40 years too late for that.

People have repeatedly told you nobody cares about what's between players legs, or what you choose to do with your models.

Except, actually, that's not been the case, because we've had several users imply that women are biologically driven away from wargaming, one saying that women *should* be driven away by toxic behaviour, and the examples of women Astartes models have been riddled with comments criticising their models for having female heads.

People have repeatedly said why they don't think the status Quo needs changing

And invariably, those reasons have been some flavour of "I don't care about women's feelings" to "women Space Marines are a nebulously defined problem which I won't elaborate on".

Hardly very reasonable explanations.

People like the way the things are for a myriad of reasons which always boils down to "ohh well and don't give me the me the lore crap" and "ohh thats not a good reason". I'm sorry I don't know what else to tell you.

The lore's made up, mate. There's no excuse to use the lore to defend the lore, which I what I'm pointing out.

It's like a maths equation - I'm asking you to explain why 5=5, and all you can do is say "because 5=5", instead of "2+3=5".

Some people like it so much they have been buying models for 40k for night on 25+ years.. Some people dont. Which is fair enough.

And why would adding women Space Marines stop those people buying models for 25+ years? Why is it women Space Marines which would stop them?

This is the question you've not answered.

Nobody at all in this entire thread has said that making female space marines is bad if that's what you want to do.

In this thread, but that's ignoring all the people *in the wider world* who do say that, which is what we're trying to deal with.

Some have pointed out that if you do, its against current convention... so naturally not everyone is going to like that. You seem oblivious probably purposefully to the fact that conventions matter to people or people give them weight. Just like putting my eldar on raprots will be against convention as opposed to jet bikes and some people will have issues with that.

So why didn't those players leave when Primaris happened? When Necrons changed? When Tau started having Riptides and Stormsurges? When Knights became commonplace? When Guilliman sat up and started taking control?

You imply that adding women Space Marines would uproot the entire convention of 40k like nothing else ever has - why?

Nobody in this entire thread said they don't want female gamers in the hobby or that they wish harm on anybody

Empirically untrue, we literally *did* have a user say that they supported communities making the environment toxic to keep women out.

It might not have been you, but yes, we *did* have users saying that.

Solutions and compromises were offered which would be both beneficial to the hobby and result in more representation which would be more readily accepted. If you are unable to compromise then how is this a debate or a discussion rather than a gunshot hold up ?

Similarly, I have to ask why a compromise is needed. Why should I be expected to compromise when I have no idea why simply having women Space Marines is such an issue in the first place?

Why are women Space Marines a problem?

You have actively turned this into a political culture war.

What's political or cultural about it? We just want women Space Marines. I don't know why you're looking to make this political.

This thread has divided people, made people resent each other, block each other and just generly fostered a very very very bad experience.

If that's because they hate the idea of women Space Marines so much, why?

Do you think any of these good people will not remember each other on other topics?

I frankly don't care?

So I'd say you are doing a very good job of damaging the thing I care about which is the space, hobby and general spirit of community.

By asking for women Space Marines? Why is that a problem?

So why should I care about your feelings?

Strange argument, considering that you were apparently opposed to women Space Marines before I'd said anything, simply because you didn't care about the feelings of women compared to the Sacred Lore.

You're not explaining why you ignored people's feelings in the first place.

Ultimately I don't even know why you are stoking this argument on forum.

So, you're saying we shouldn't discuss things on these forums?

After all - it's not political to include women.

If this is such a deep personal issue to you, perhaps you should write to GW and ask for them to include Storm Cast heads with SM boxes so that people can build SM as females and they need to have SM use correct inclusive pronouns.

I wish you luck in your venture.

Bold to assume I haven't?

If GW decides this will make them money they will do it.

Agreed. And if that means retconning the Sacred Lore, they absolutely will.
That's why all these arguments about "but the lore says" are stupid, because GW will retcon that lore in a heartbeat if they can make money from it.

 some bloke wrote:

Yes, it absolutely singles them out, because they're popular, because representation is nothing without visibility.

Representation needs to happen, I agree. And I also agree that it would be cool to see female marines. But, as it stands, the lore would have to change for that to happen, which again isn't a bad thing. I'm not against the result here.

I am against the reasoning. Female marines should be added because that would be a cool thing to add. Retconning the fluff to let it happen, or even having it as a recent development, all perfectly acceptable in my book. But adding female marines just to make the hobby seem more open to women? I'm sorry, but this smacks of "we added girls so now girls can play".

Perhaps the problem is less that marines have no women, and is instead that women think that this is a reason not to play?

I mean, adding women Marines would be a cool thing to add, lore or not. It's just that also, the fluff has no business excluding women in the first place, and by keeping that remnant of ridiculous made up fiction, we're both preventing cool ideas, and contributing to a sense of "only boys allowed".

Obviously, girls can play anyway. But there's also a large section, like it or not, of girls who would very much like women Space Marines to exist to validate their own integration into 40k culture.

There's also no logical reason that female marines shouldn't be possible in the first place.

It's written into the fluff.

I know - and the fluff is all made up. There's no logical reason that the fluff had to say that women Space Marines weren't possible in the first place.

There's no logical reason why Orks should be masculine either, but no-one's asking for female orks.

Orks aren't the face of 40k though.

But I digress from the point - the reason why the fictional space marines are the way they are is because it was how they were written.

But that writing has clearly changed, not just for Space Marines, but for every faction over time.

Yet "no women" is still considered this sacred cornerstone that can't be touched? Why? Why did it exist in the first place, and why should it exist now?

They are no more than the sum of their lore, that's all they are. So what the lore says is, infallably, what they are.

But this implies that the lore isn't all just made up anyway.

But I'm not adverse to changing or adding to that lore, only to the reasons behind doing so.

Because there's no reason why 50% of the population should be excluded in the first place, and because it's cool?

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*.

It's not accurate to include women in an army which has established lore describing why, with utter absolution, they are all men, always.

You say "established lore", I say "made up excuses for no good reason".

When Space Marines were being rewritten (because they *did have women at one point*), someone consciously made up reasons why they couldn't have women. That's the part I'm calling out on here.

Yes, women make up 50% of the population, but the fictional population of Astartes is 100% men, because they can't or don't make women.

Yes, the fictional population of Astartes, who can't have women because of fictional reasons that are entirely arbitrary.

Why do Space Marines have an entirely arbitrary fictional rules saying "no women"?

Saying "make half the marines women for accuracy" is exactly like saying "make half the WW1 soldiers women for accuracy". Half the people were women, all the soldiers were men. Same deal with marines, with the current fluff. So "accuracy" is the opposite of an argument for female marines.

Except that WW1 was real. Space Marines aren't real, and so are the reasons that women can't be one.

I want to see female marines. But I want to see them in a grim dark setting, being gritty and realistic, taking one everything that the men do without any fuss. It needs to be a change they make without remark. I don't want to see banners saying "now with female marines!". I just want to see them start appearing in the pictures and in the stores. I don't want to see any female marines getting "girl treatment" in the stories (unless it's someone saying "ignore her, she's just a woman" before she literally rips his head off).

Uh, yeah. That's what I want too.

I don't want a big song and dance about it, I just want to see women Space Marines treated like every other kind of Space Marine.

TL;DR: Female marines, hell yes.

Alright! That's all I'm after.

 some bloke wrote:
If they just add female marines, and make no song or dance about it, just adjust the lore, add them, and then include them in advertising, then that will be perfect. They will probably attract women who think they can't play because the marines are all men, if such women exist, and hopefully will improve the vibe of GW stores (I took that on board when someone posted it, and I hadn't thought of it like that, IE that all male models would make women seem more of a rare thing to the hobbyists. I can see the truth there).

If they add female marines and then say "introducing the all new GIRL MARINES! Everyone look, now girls can play too! We've even added a special all-girl unit to this thing!" Then this would be an appalling thing. Imagine this same approach, but instead of "Girls" you replace it with any race, or any sexuality? See how it becomes a serious problem?

I don't recall anyone asking for the latter, and everyone who is pro-women Astartes is calling for the former.

I'm not seeing the issue here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Itd be really tough to narratively justify adding female astartes, too. you'd probably need some kind of major catastrophe happening in the universe, stretching the lines of the astartes thin, multiple iconic chapters getting decimated as well as the populations on their recruiting worlds. You'd also want to have it coincide with some major technological changes in the makeup of astartes, and a change in the leadership of the imperium as a whole - maybe like, one of the primarchs could return and start trying to bring the imperium out of its millennia long decay, maybe he could instate a woman as a high lord of terra, someone who knows and respects the power of women on the battlefield and might be able to convince the rest of the group that exapnding the recruitment pool for astartes by 100% would be beneficial to the imperium overall.

I'm just like, speculating though, obviously this is a lot of wild stuff that is unlikely to happen.

Anyway i'm typing this through a sort of wibbly time portal so I figured I'd ask - what year is it for y'all? for me it's 2015, how does the rest of the decade turn out?

Ha! Very nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Altima wrote:
Don't answer that; I'll just post the rest of the article.

Roe also explained the issue with sexualization in models in Warhammer Fantasy and Age of Sigmar, explaining that while she and a lot of women don’t have an issue with it, they don’t want it to be the only option.

“They want to see Paladin Women, and now Stormcast Eternals…the largest army in Age of Sigmar now has female Stormcast,” she said.

According to Roe, the new coreset for Age of Sigmar will be the first time they have released a core set with female models in it, adding that because a lot of armies were male centric, being the odd one out tends to lead to intimidation. She said it “takes more women to get more women in the hobby.”

She specifically calls out the exact situation in AoS that we're discussing here. The largest product for AoS was only men which led to feelings of under representation and discomfort which disappeared once the second wave showed up and included women in the army.

I hope that all the people saying "BUT WHAT DO WOMEN REALLY WANT?!?!" read this, especially the bolded sections, and I'd like to see what they say about it.

That was a massive post, I'm only going to pick up on one aspect of it as we seem to agree that marines should have females but not on why.

Being male is fine. Being the flagship, and being all male is not, and contributes to a sense that "male = default".

Orks aren't the face of 40k though.

My issue (and it's a big one for me) is the idea that the reason for changing marines isn't because female marines would be cool (which is in the spirit of equality yadda yadda but is ultimately because it would be awesome), but because they are the flagship.

You say that it's ok for them to be all male if they weren't the flagship. That is the most flawed logic I can think of. It's either a problem, or it isn't. It can't be "not a problem because it's not in peoples faces". That's like saying it's ok to be sexist as long as no-one can see.

Let me try to explain it by switching the target out, for two hypothetical situations. I'll ask you not to say "but that's not how it is", because that won't help this to move anywhere.

What if Orks were the flagship? Let's say Orks become super popular, space marines become less so, and Orks become the flagship product. Orks are on all the banners, Orks are on the website, and in nearly every starter box.

Would you expect them to change the lore (which only exists because it was written, as we've established) so that Orks are no longer asexual mushroom people who reproduce via spores, and instead expect them to produce a 50/50 mix of male and female orks?

Fundamentally this is on the same level. The reason orks all appear masculine is because they do. The reason marines all appear male is because they do. Both armies have an established lore behind why they appear as they do (orks are strong and don't have genders. Marines can only be made male. all this only exists because they wrote it that way.) but it makes no sense to adjust Orks to have female orks. The implication by your claims that it's not acceptable to have an all-male flagship product means to have Orks as a flagship, you would want female Orks. Is that correct?


Now, let's say that sisters of battle are the flagship. Would you say it's unacceptable to have an all female faction be the flagship as it suggests female = normal?


Do you see the flaw in the logic?

Now apply the different reasoning. "We want female marines because it is a cool idea". That holds water regardless of whether it is done to pander to the people.


I hope you can see what I'm getting at. Saying "they can't all be men because they are at the forefront of the marketing department!" is sexist. Saying "They shouldn't all be men because it would be cool to have women as well" is not sexist.

I don't want to derail the thread (even if probably that's exactly what this post will do) but just so you know:

When you say"That is the most flawed logic I can think of. It's either a problem, or it isn't"... You're wrong.

Specifically, you're still using the Aristotelic first order logic... Which is fine in itself, but requires A LOT of additional axioms to be used properly. It works in math (even here only under certain condition) but is dramatically inadequate to describe the real world.

In the real world, very rarely something "is" or "isn't". Usually the answer is "it depends".

Is this person a man or a woman?
Is the light a wave or a particle?
Is the cat dead or alive?
Will this radioactive particle decay today or not?
Is the air conditioner on or off?

All those questions apparently VERY OBVIOUS in fact are not obvious at all (the last one refers to fuzzy logic, just so you know where to check why such a simple statement is in fact much more complex).

THE SAME EXACT THING can either be sexist or not depending exclusively on the circumstances. Truth is not an object or an entity, it is a status that a predicament possess in relationships with certain assumption.
That said, I'll be more than happy to investigate the argument in another thread.

In the case of the Sister of Battle as a flagship faction: do you mean WITH ALL THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES AS THEY ARE?
The answer is: partially.
It won't be as much sexist as an only male flagship faction, and definitely willhave created a different environment in the various gaming club that we currently don't have... but will be sexist anyway: because they represent woman in a very stereotyped way.
But say: Sister of Battle as flagship faction and at the same time a faction like Adeptus Mechanicus all-female? Then I will think that Space Marine can remain all male without any issue.

To put another way, if there’s a disease with an 80% fatality rate, that can be a big problem.
If it can affect 95% of people, Is highly transmissible, and difficult to treat, that’s a huge problem.
If it’s a genetic disease that affects one in every ten million people, it’s still a problem-but not nearly the urgency that the former has.

So, if Custodes stay all men, it can be viewed as an issue-but it’s not nearly the issue that Marines being all men is.

 Cybtroll wrote:
I don't want to derail the thread (even if probably that's exactly what this post will do) but just so you know:

When you say"That is the most flawed logic I can think of. It's either a problem, or it isn't"... You're wrong.

Specifically, you're still using the Aristotelic first order logic... Which is fine in itself, but requires A LOT of additional axioms to be used properly. It works in math (even here only under certain condition) but is dramatically inadequate to describe the real world.

In the real world, very rarely something "is" or "isn't". Usually the answer is "it depends".

Is this person a man or a woman?
Is the light a wave or a particle?
Is the cat dead or alive?
Will this radioactive particle decay today or not?
Is the air conditioner on or off?

All those questions apparently VERY OBVIOUS in fact are not obvious at all (the last one refers to fuzzy logic, just so you know where to check why such a simple statement is in fact much more complex).

THE SAME EXACT THING can either be sexist or not depending exclusively on the circumstances. Truth is not an object or an entity, it is a status that a predicament possess in relationships with certain assumption.
That said, I'll be more than happy to investigate the argument in another thread.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that the schrodingers cat experiment, which was created to show the flaws in quantum theory and not to explain them, is a model on which you would determine whether something is or isn't sexist?

Ultimately sexism is very much based on motivations. If I hold a door open for someone, I am being polite. That is a fact. If I do it because they are a woman, I am also being sexist. If I do it because I'm a nice person and would hold the door open for whoever is walking behind me, I'm not being sexist.

Including female space marines is like holding the door open. It is a good thing to do, no matter the reasoning. But if it is done to appease people and say "now girls can play too", then it is sexist. If it's done "because it's cool", then it's not sexist. Do you see?

What I'm largely getting is that the only reason people want female space marines is because they are the flagship product and therefore cannot possibly be all men. That is the wrong reason for making a change.

It is not quantum physics. The sex of a person or the functioning of an air conditioner are not quantum physics... Yet they don't have a definitive answer for them neither.

Your last paragraph explain exactly what I mean: there is no "truth" unrelated to the condition it is expressed within.

So, unless I'm mistaken, EVERYONE advocating for female space marine recognized that under different conditions (or: not being the flagship product for example) they could be not (or less) sexist (like Custodes are).

Others said "it is not possible" speaking about a fantasy world.

And as I said, "the reason" to make something is worthless (unless you're making a review of an effective decision making process). Reasons bears no importance towards the effect that a change will produce.

So, the "wrong" reason is a double mistake. First there is no "wrong" outside your evaluation. Second, even admitting the reason are wrong, who cares if the results are good?

 Cybtroll wrote:
It is not quantum physics. The sex of a person or the functioning of an air conditioner are not quantum physics... Yet they don't have a definitive answer for them neither.

Your last paragraph explain exactly what I mean: there is no "truth" unrelated to the condition it is expressed within.

So, unless I'm mistaken, EVERYONE advocating for female space marine recognized that under different conditions (or: not being the flagship product for example) they could be not (or less) sexist (like Custodes are).

Others said "it is not possible" speaking about a fantasy world.

And as I said, "the reason" to make something is worthless (unless you're making a review of an effective decision making process). Reasons bears no importance towards the effect that a change will produce.

So, the "wrong" reason is a double mistake. First there is no "wrong" outside your evaluation. Second, even admitting the reason are wrong, who cares if the results are good?

Well, firstly I'm pretty sure air conditioners are actually on or off, with varying power settings. Not sure where you're going with that bit, but seeing as it seems to stray into gender identity instead of "should marines all be men" it seems irrelevant anyway.

Secondly, no, not everyone who is advocating for female marines agrees that it wouldn't be necessary if they weren't the flagship product. I would think it a good idea no matter where they sat on the popularity scale. I am against doing it exclusively because they are the flagship. As in "I am against (doing it because they are the flagship)", not "I am against doing it (because they are the flagship)". If you take my drift on where the emphasis is meant to be on those words!

Thirdly, the reasoning for it is absolutely important. If I hold a door open for a woman because I think the is incapable of doing it herself because she is a weak and feeble woman, then that is absolutely sexist. If I hold the door open for her because I think it's polite to do that for people, it is not sexist.

If you make space marines female exclusively because they are popular and all men and we can't possibly have popular things that are all men, then that is 100% sexist.

If you make space marines female because that would be cool, and start with marines as they have the bigger fanbase, then that is not sexist. It's a logical first step. If it's the only step, though, it becomes a token gesture that remains sexist, in the same way as letting people of a certain minority ride the bus, but only if they sit at the back. "you can join this community, and can have female models!" "oh cool, which armies?" "battle nuns or the ones we've added just for you, of course, because you couldn't have an army without girls in it could you, girlie?"


Isolating effect from reason is like saying that "How he did it was irrelevant, Hitler improved Germany's economy!" It was a good effect, so the way he did it is irrelevant, right?

 some bloke wrote:

 Cybtroll wrote:
It is not quantum physics. The sex of a person or the functioning of an air conditioner are not quantum physics... Yet they don't have a definitive answer for them neither.

Your last paragraph explain exactly what I mean: there is no "truth" unrelated to the condition it is expressed within.

So, unless I'm mistaken, EVERYONE advocating for female space marine recognized that under different conditions (or: not being the flagship product for example) they could be not (or less) sexist (like Custodes are).

Others said "it is not possible" speaking about a fantasy world.

And as I said, "the reason" to make something is worthless (unless you're making a review of an effective decision making process). Reasons bears no importance towards the effect that a change will produce.

So, the "wrong" reason is a double mistake. First there is no "wrong" outside your evaluation. Second, even admitting the reason are wrong, who cares if the results are good?

Well, firstly I'm pretty sure air conditioners are actually on or off, with varying power settings. Not sure where you're going with that bit, but seeing as it seems to stray into gender identity instead of "should marines all be men" it seems irrelevant anyway.

Secondly, no, not everyone who is advocating for female marines agrees that it wouldn't be necessary if they weren't the flagship product. I would think it a good idea no matter where they sat on the popularity scale. I am against doing it exclusively because they are the flagship. As in "I am against (doing it because they are the flagship)", not "I am against doing it (because they are the flagship)". If you take my drift on where the emphasis is meant to be on those words!

Thirdly, the reasoning for it is absolutely important. If I hold a door open for a woman because I think the is incapable of doing it herself because she is a weak and feeble woman, then that is absolutely sexist. If I hold the door open for her because I think it's polite to do that for people, it is not sexist.

If you make space marines female exclusively because they are popular and all men and we can't possibly have popular things that are all men, then that is 100% sexist.

If you make space marines female because that would be cool, and start with marines as they have the bigger fanbase, then that is not sexist. It's a logical first step. If it's the only step, though, it becomes a token gesture that remains sexist, in the same way as letting people of a certain minority ride the bus, but only if they sit at the back. "you can join this community, and can have female models!" "oh cool, which armies?" "battle nuns or the ones we've added just for you, of course, because you couldn't have an army without girls in it could you, girlie?"


Isolating effect from reason is like saying that "How he did it was irrelevant, Hitler improved Germany's economy!" It was a good effect, so the way he did it is irrelevant, right?

Yeah, you're right - we'd need to be adding female models to guard, tau, genestealer cults, chaos cults, making female inquisitors, female characters, new sculpts for classic female characters and untis like howling banshees, integrating female models for necromunda gangs...otherwise it'd just be a frustrating token bs effort.

Oh!

Damn, will you look at that!

Mk, first off lots of people have said they want female SM because it gives them new modeling/story opportunites but also because they believe representation to be important. People are allowed to think multiple things. The reason you have mostly seen arguments regarding representation is because that's what all the counter-push is about, people not wanting/caring about representation.

As for your hypothetical, how would you present female Orks? Orks don't have body hair so hairstyles are removed as an aesthetic. If you change them away from being fungoid completely, will they be mammals? Fish? Insects? Only one of those has physical features that would portray a model as female.
Alternatively, very few things would need to change to present Orks as genderless fungi monsters. Basically, remove the use of male pronouns, instead opting for they/them, and change the use of "Boy/z" for other words. Ork Boyz? Ork Mob. Weirdboy? Weird/Waaagh-Prophet/Shaman. Stormboyz? Rocket-jumperz.

Altima wrote:
Why don't you do us a favor and define for us what is a political discussion for you.

And just fyi, even if you consider this a political discussion does not make the concern raised any less valid. If you want an entirely apolitical hobby, you picked the wrong one that was based on satire that outright mocks tropes from the 80's and 90's.

I can't speak for Argive, but the political part is the idea that a piece of fiction must be changed because it doesn't correlate with the current vogue belief by certain politically active individuals, who claim that anything that doesn't match their perception of an equitable society is harmful and thereby is responsible for driving injustice in the real world.

By extension it denies the idea that fiction is divested from reality and therefor Space Marines being all male is the direct root cause of any bad behavior by individuals in the community and is responsible for the low participation of women in the hobby. Therefore by knowing this and refusing to act (or acting to preserve this current state) it is a perpetuating sexism, which mirrors Critical Race Theory's tenets of Institutional Racism and Structural Determinism.

It denies that individuals who act poorly do so without free will due to circumstances which embolden them that women's low participation is due to institutional discriminatory factors rather than any other explanation.

Additionally the very idea that we NEED more women in 40k presupposes that the lack of women in 40k is A) a problem and B) the result of some flaw within the community. It completely fails to consider that women not having an equal presence in the hobby can be due to self-determination (lack of interest for example), and attempts to remedy the supposed "problem" without fully understanding why this occurring or if it even truly is a problem.

Altima wrote:
Women don't exist in the Space Marine lineup. Women models barely exist in the hobby as a whole. Women are barely acknowledged in the marketing or any media associated with the property. The primary army in the hobby that may as well be the entire hobby has been specifically stated to be a boys only club.

And there is a large subset of people in the hobby that will lie, cheat, steal, and screech like harpies at the idea that GW open up Space Marines to include women.

Yes Space Marines are all male. Yes, there is a lack of female models across many factions in the game that pretty much everyone here on both sides agrees should be addressed. How you can argue with a straight face that women are not acknowledged in the marketing is utterly baffling to me...

It might not be exactly 50/50, but GW has massively improved the level of female representation in it's marketing/media materials.

The Indomitus trailer features 3 guardsmen (1 female, 2 unidentifiable), a large number of Space Marines, and an equally large number of Sisters of Battle. Both the Sisters and the Marines get equal screen time, about equal lengths of dialogue, and are both depicted struggling with Necrons and heroically saving one another.

They also had Becca Scott doing how to play videos for many of the recent Specialist Games and new editions. Also, in the process of finding Becca's last Warhammer appearance (it appears to be the end of 2019 for the record), I noticed that they used female voice overs for the 9th edition how to play Warhammer videos.

Can they do more? Sure.
Will they do more? Probably/hopefully
Should they do more? I don't see why not.

But what we have now is a far cry from "barely acknowledging".

Altima wrote:
The discussion is that some people want women in the astartes, and the counter discussion is NO YOU CAN'T BECAUSE REASONS.

And all the reasons listed are stupid. All people are wanting is a head sprue change and acknowledgement in canon that women space marines exist so that backward grognards can't whine at them that "you're not following the lore!"

Imagine walking into GW five years ago as a girl and wanting to start an army that looked like you. If you wanted an army that was predominantly female, your only choice is the SoB, who at the time were expensive, had 20+ year old models, and probably on the verge of getting squatted. Your other choice is evil rape elves that exist literally to inflict as much pain and torment in the galaxy as possible. Even now, your choices are between religious extremists and space BDSM elves. It would be very much doubtful that you would start the hobby. To which I imagine your thoughts are that it's a good thing and that girls should only play 40k as long as it's by your rules.

First off, it is NOT 5 years ago so that's completely irrelevant.

Second, the majority of people on both sides in this thread agree that there is a lack of female models in the factions which are already stated to have them. It is known, it's not that controversial that GW needs to fix it, and they have certainly been doing a little bit better recently. None of that has any relation to Space Marines being exclusively male other than people trying to force the argument that GW will never add more models female or otherwise to other factions (despite them doing exactly that recently) therefore Marines must be changed.

Third, if you write out a description for any of the factions in 40k they sound terrible. That's part of the point. I also don't remember (it has been a while) Sisters being depicted as anything other than dutiful arbiters of justice or compassionate defenders in most of the Imperial novels they appear in, though I will admit that I haven't had a chance to read the recent ones yet. But I'd hardly call psycho-indoctrinated emotionless shock-assault troops who follow the same Imperial creed of "if it doesn't espouse Imperial propaganda, blow it of the map" as being particularly heartwarming.

While we are at it let's address "wanting to start an army that looked like you". Wanting to look like WHO exactly? Is a 5' tall chubby Japanese woman supposed to identify with a >7' tall roided out white woman because they have long hair and were born with the same genitalia? I mean I'm not a woman but I can identify with aspects of all female factions and characters despite not sharing bodily traits with them. I certainly didn't convert female Stormcast or Chaos Cultists because they "looked like me"...

Also, the reasons people have given are not "stupid" you just don't like them... And I couldn't care less that you don't. I grew up with 40k and enjoy the heck out of it. I

Altima wrote:
The status quo has already changed. The status quo will continue to change. GW gives zero gak about the integrity of the lore except inasmuch as it generates profits. I wonder why some people are willing to swallow primaris, necron rewrites, and so on, but will absolutely die on the hill of space marines with a long hair sprue.

GW corporate probably doesn't care, but the fans do. Which is why I care so much.

Also who said anyone defending all-male space marines is/was ok with Necrons, Primaris, ect?

I am very much of the belief that the Necron changes were horrible and cheapen the setting. I have believed that since their release and still believe that...
I also think that Primaris was a relatively stupid addition just because GW wanted an excuse to resell everyone their marine armies. But I'm willing to grudgingly accept that it finally got us a tougher stat-line and true-scaled models.

Altima wrote:
Yes, and one of the asks is to make it conventional so that no one can complain about the specific existence of female space marines.

Also, no clue what raprots are.

Multiple people have claimed that and it is a gak reason every time they do. Making female space marines canon isn't going to stop gakheads from being gakheads, and I can say that with 100% certainty because I've seem plenty of gakheads say crap things to other people both IRL and online with no relation to race or gender involved.

Going out of their way to complain at someone about how they are breaking the lore because they didn't use the canonical colors for the space marine chapter they are fielding.

Interrupting someone else's game to tell them about a rules violation and then getting mad when the players decided it's fine they'll just ignore it because "you aren't respecting the integrity of the rules".

Implying someone is dumb or has mental condition because they brought a subpar army or made a tactical mistake in game.

Argive misspelled "raptors"...
Which is reminds me of another gakhole think I've seen:
People insisting someone else is cheating or their models should be illegal because their conversion changes the silhouette of a model. (specifically when the conversion wasn't being done in bad faith)

Altima wrote:

 Argive wrote:

Nobody in this entire thread said they don't want female gamers in the hobby or that they wish harm on anybody

But they're strongly implying it.

Ok, who? Quote it. Because I haven't seen anyone imply it.

Not wanting the lore for space marines to change is not even close to the same thing as refusing to allow women in the hobby or inciting violence against them.

Altima wrote:
"Won't somebody please think of the children?!"

Let's turn this around. Let's say that this is a political discussion and a social issue and for the sake of discussion, that there's only two sides: pro female space marines and anti female space marines. I don't know about you, but if I was taking a social position and I happened to notice on my side that it included all of the misogynists, bigots, and so on, I might re-examine my position and what I was really asking for.

As compared to what? The side that claims we are only as good as our skin color, gender, or sexuality and that we are wrong for refusing to agree with them? I think there's a word for that...

Altima wrote:

 Argive wrote:

So I'd say you are doing a very good job of damaging the thing I care about which is the space, hobby and general spirit of community.
So why should I care about your feelings?

So a head sprue and thirteen words from thirty years ago is where you draw the line. So you'll stop treating people like people if they insist that the primary faction include equal representation for all genders instead of being an uninviting boys club?

Such a change wouldn't actually impact your ability to play the hobby, and if your enjoyment hinges on male-only space marines to the detriment of others, I ask you why should anyone care about your feelings if you're that self-centered?

How is not wanting canonical changes to Space Marines, "not treating people as people"? Rather than reducing anyone down to some monolith of their genitalia I simply believe in showing them the fiction and the hobby as it is and letting them determine for themselves if they like it and want to engage in it.

I actually did try to get my ex-girlfriend into Warhammer and basically ran her through the full catalogue of models asking what she liked and giving little explanations of everything. She ended up picking Gloomspite Gits because she thought it'd be funny to paint their robes pink. So I bought her a box of grots and a variety of pink paints.

Altima wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Ultimately I don't even know why you are stoking this argument on forum.

Probably the same reason you are--because they feel strongly about including women among space marines because it sends a message about this hobby. It's unfortunate that you're taking the stance to exclude women from being represented by default from 50% of the hobby, which also sends a message.

It's funny because I don't oppose female space marines because it "sends a message", as if somehow it'll attract this massive untapped market of people interested in sci-fi settings or miniature Wargames that didn't already make up their mind about 40k...

I oppose it because it's an arbitrary change to a fictional setting that I enjoy based on the assumption that somehow said change will make the community more welcoming to a hypothetical untapped segment of fans based on the anecdotal and emotional arguments of a small but vocal segment of the community. Also this change is supposedly so minuscule and unimportant that no one should be bothered by it, but also is somehow the singular thing making some people feel unwelcome. Also this piece of fiction is singularly responsible for the creation/encouragement of bad actors within the community, and this change will fix that but without doing any *actual* work to hold people accountable for their bad behavior or trying to build a healthy local community.

Oh and I also "love" how a small number of bad actors is apparently reflective of a large segment of the community, despite there being no evidence of that.

 CEO Kasen wrote:
So I wrote this whole multiparagraph thing trying to give some of the opposition an out for clinging overmuch to the perceived integrity of an escapist fantasy world rather than necessarily being outright bigoted - and let's face it, recently there's been a lot of reason to want to cling to an escapist fantasy, even if it's a galaxy where genocide is more common than unscarred faces - but then I read Argive's post.

This is a complete misunderstanding of what politics is and what it needs to stay out of. The *lack* of female representation is itself a political statement, because 40K is a living setting still being commercially sold by a major company with a thousand hands on the wheel that has happily undergone dozens of retcons since its Rogue Trader days, and recently had the perfect excuse to include them in evolving lore via the Primaris Marines, and still utterly failed to do so in an ostensibly modern time. THAT is a political statement.

Ok, so I want to politely ask you to answer a question for me. When is it acceptable to have a mono-gendered group in a fictional setting?

When it goes out of it's way to specifically criticize the concept as wrong?

When it sufficiently jumps through enough arbitrary hoops to justify why it was absolutely necessary from a literary perspective?

When the fiction is unknown enough to not be visible to most people?

Because judging by the responses in this thread I feel the answer is "never if men, though we'll ignore it if women, but if we get questioned about it then we'll say we think it shouldn't apply anywhere". Which seems ridiculously restrictive about what can be explored in fiction and also seems to deny peoples' ability to hold their real world morals and views separate from that of fiction.

It may not sound like it, and I apologize if that is the case, but I'm legitimately asking in good faith because I'm curious about your viewpoint.

And again, as I said in response to Altima, many people are assuming that I and others are for some reason supportive of, or at least okay with, other major changes that GW made to 40k for stupid reasons. I'd also argue that outside of Necrons and *sort of* Primaris there aren't really any other major changes to the identity of a faction that I can think of off the top of my head. But feel free to point them out.

 CEO Kasen wrote:
Every day that women do not exist in the Space Marines (and the Imperium is not explicitly and repeatedly called out on this fact being an example of the Imperium being an archaic theocratic backwards misogynistic shithole) then even if this is not what GW means to say, they ultimately do say "We need to keep women out of the core part of our manly hobby of playing acrylic dressup with overpriced plastic spacemen." And - again, even if this is not what you mean to say, it is what you say when you say that shouldn't change.

"Archaic theocratic shithole" sure, but I don't understand how exclusively making your chemically castrated, mind wiped shock troopers exclusively from men but then allowing women to participate in literally every other level of your society from bottom to top, including positions even hierarchically higher than the highest ranking Space Marine, translates to "backwards misogynistic".

Also do you not believe in people's ability to think critically of things, that you think they need a piece of media to shout at them about what values they should hold?
Because I can draw comparisons to other groups that thought the same, but you won't like them...

Edit: Fixed a formatting mistake.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Yeah, you're right - we'd need to be adding female models to guard, tau, genestealer cults, chaos cults, making female inquisitors, female characters, new sculpts for classic female characters and untis like howling banshees, integrating female models for necromunda gangs...otherwise it'd just be a frustrating token bs effort.

Oh!

Damn, will you look at that!

That's a fair point you've made there. I stand corrected on it just being a token effort if they did it.

I still maintain my stance that if they do it for any reason other than because it would be cool to do, it's somewhat sexist.

Guard never had a reason to be all male. The addition of women in guard is more of a "hey, we have no female models, let's make some". I don't know, to be honest. I am really on the fence. On one hand, female marines would be a cool thing to have. On the other, it shouldn't be done "so that women can play marines". If the only reason for doing it is because marines are the flagship, then here's a suggestion - why don't they make someone else the flagship?

Seriously, the problem seems to be "women see GW, they see all male models, so they don't feel like they can play". Change that to "Women see GW, they see male and female guardsmen, so they feel that they can play".



I feel like if Orks were the flagship, people would say "change the flagship". If Marines are the flagship, people say "Change marines". It seems wrong.