Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
some bloke wrote: I think the thing is that the lore doesn't have to be retconned for this to be included, and I personally dislike it when the lore is changed in a "actually c'tan were beaten by the necrons and their old lore never happened" sort of way. I'd have been much happier if they had just said, for example, that more necron stuff awoke and that included some c'tan which were defeated, and that the nightbringer and deceiver held no feelings for them so don't care that they are using them as weapons of war. That would have sat better with me than just rewriting the whole thing.
It doesn't have to be retconned, but I don't see why it shouldn't be retconned in the first place. Why does it need to stay as a monument to that? Do you have a problem that Leman Russ was retconned from being an army commander to a Primarch? Should GW be making some kind of lore that explains how that works?
And whilst it is all made up, it's always better to keep what you can than keep changing things around, it leaves people like me feeling a bit lost.
But what is there to cause people to be lost? It's literally just as simple as "women Space Marines exist, and always did". If that would get you lost, then surely changing the setting by advancing it forwards in time would also cause that feeling of being lost?
This isn't changing the entire dynamics of a faction and how they relate on a cosmic power scale with the rest of the galaxy. It's not even as drastic as Primaris Marines, or even Space Marines getting their own jet fighters. It's simply just "we have women Space Marines".
Then, regarding the whole "leaves people feeling lost" - that's not exactly dissimilar from the people feeling lost and excluded because there's lore explicitly excluding them, is it?
Spoiler:
My comment on statues was from people who were defacing statues because the person's grandparents had been involved in the slave trade, as if that held any sway over what the person did.
Strange - most of the examples I see are defacing statues of *actual slavers*, and who got the wealth which made them so """worthy""" of having a statue via that slave trade.
Destroying history is universally worse than just remembering it and moving on.
Destroying a statue isn't forgetting history, and a statue isn't necessarily "historical" in it's own right (example - many of the statues of slavers in the UK were erected centuries after their deaths, in the Victorian period. They're not ancient historical relics, they're commemorations of slavers).
All the same, probably best to leave this here, yes? Getting a little off topic.
I'd prefer to see the same treatment of 40k lore, rather than having to tell all the people who have played for years that the lore they know is wrong, it's better to tell them it's out of date.
Firstly, 40k lore isn't real. It's not even close to the same relevance, or importance, as real world statues of slavers.
Secondly, the lore has changed and retconned and evolved countless times. Why is women Space Marines the hurdle we need to stop at?
There's nothing wrong with telling them that it's out of date, but that doesn't mean that we can't do that in the way I described above - GW can just repost the original "Creation of a Space Marine" article, and then throw in a footnote saying "yeah, this used to be canon, but we dropped it". There we go, history preserved, and setting moved on.
It makes it seem like a colossal waste of time to have read enough of it to remember it, only to have it changed retrospectively.
So what - you're saying that here's where we draw the line in the earth, no more retcons, no more lore developments, because if we add more, it's just a waste of time on the old stuff?
Why now? Why women Space Marines? Why is that the hurdle that's so difficult to jump?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 15:49:00
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm going to need you to back up "the idea that there should he female Astartes seems to be overwhelmingly pushed by men who claim to speak on behalf of women, not women themselves, which is of course ironic."
I mean people in this thread are saying the lack of female Astartes is the reason for less women in this hobby.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, for those of you claiming that the setting material saying that Astartes can only be made from boys and not girls is "non-core," that's ridiculous. It's just you inventing the idea that it's some lower tier of canon so it can be ignored.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 16:42:53
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm going to need you to back up "the idea that there should he female Astartes seems to be overwhelmingly pushed by men who claim to speak on behalf of women, not women themselves, which is of course ironic."
I mean people in this thread are saying the lack of female Astartes is the reason for less women in this hobby.
I mean, if you squint and really ignore a lot of the comments made, I suppose you could reach that conclusion.
Is it a massive oversimplification and missing out on a lot of the detail and nuance of the point? Yes, that too.
Also, for those of you claiming that the setting material saying that Astartes can only be made from boys and not girls is "non-core," that's ridiculous. It's just you inventing the idea that it's some lower tier of canon so it can be ignored.
Define "core" for me?
Is everything considered core canon? Is some stuff more or less important than others? If so, we have it "in canon" that Leman Russ is a human Imperial Army commander, and not a Primarch. Is that core canon still? If not, what an absolutely tragedy!! 40k is ruined, burnt to ashes, all because Leman Russ is now a Primarch, and not some random army commander! /s
40k canon is not all created equal. This much is obvious. And when a certain piece of very old lore, which barely surfaces in secondary publications, let alone in the *actual Codexes* is being touted as "core canon", I'm more than a little doubtful as to the validity of that claim.
Is everything considered core canon? Is some stuff more or less important than others? If so, we have it "in canon" that Leman Russ is a human Imperial Army commander, and not a Primarch. Is that core canon still? If not, what an absolutely tragedy!! 40k is ruined, burnt to ashes, all because Leman Russ is now a Primarch, and not some random army commander! /s
That argument fails because that lore has been explicitly superceded. I'd say nice try, but...
40k canon is not all created equal. This much is obvious. And when a certain piece of very old lore, which barely surfaces in secondary publications, let alone in the *actual Codexes* is being touted as "core canon", I'm more than a little doubtful as to the validity of that claim.
It's also supported because there's literally no example of a female human undergoing the process to become an Astartes. The intent when the process was first described was for the Astartes to be all-male, and nowhere has that been contradicted, no matter how many guys wish it so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 19:15:03
Do you maybe feel like you're looking for an argument that's easier to defend, and you've picked "in current canon, there are female loyalist astartes" instead of what is actually being discussed in the thread, "current canon that there can only be male loyalist astartes is unimportant and as a restriction doesn't add anything meaningful"
To me, "astartes must be all male" is a piece of canon sort of analogous to "space marines don't have antigrav technology save for the Land Speeder STC"
It was definitely canon, and it was definitely a thing GW decided to change with the primaris stuff. As to the "Why"...I can't really say? As to what it adds or detracts from the setting...I don't know, I don't much like the primaris vehicles from a design perspective, I think they're pointlessly busy and kind of look like GI Joe toys, but I've always hated the fact that marine vehicles are just boring dull boxes, theyve never been something I've been actually excited for so my opinion hasn't really changed. But conceptually given that marines are supposed to be this "lightning strike force" having vehicles that hover and can traverse any terrain more quickly than the slower, tracked vehicles the IG and Sisters use makes sense.
It's just kind of a neutral change for the most part. You have to really think to come up with arguments and for the most part...I'm gonna suspect most detraction from them is just a rationalization of "I think it's ugly/new thing bad."
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
I'm not arguing that that's the case. Show me any example of a female human undergoing the process that turns someone into an Astartes.
You're arguing it's a "core" piece of background, if it's so central to the idea of SM then why is it not present in recent publications of the primary source of faction lore, the SM Codex?
People were saying that upthread. Go see.
Which people? From what I've seen you have massively oversimplified the arguments put across and boiled it down to "no female SM means no women hobbyists", which isn't what posters are saying.
Why don't you? You're the one claiming that certain aetting background is "non-core."
You defined it as a "core" piece of background, it is literally on you to define that.
It's also supported because there's literally no example of a female human undergoing the process to become an Astartes. The intent when the process was first described was for the Astartes to be all-male, and nowhere has that been contradicted, no matter how many guys wish it so.
Again, while an Astartes may be male it does not preclude the potential for forced sex change. It's horrible and I wouldn't want it in official background but some people like "dark" things like that in 40k. Just because it hasn't been contradicted doesn't mean its been supported either.
I don't think that the older stuff should be changed to be "there have always been female Astartes". Not because I believe in the "sanctity of the background" but because it follows the same process as Primaris did. New Thing happens, Old Guard isn't 100% sure of New Thing, New Thing turns out to be necessary and vitally needed, Old Guard grumbles a bit but get on with the problems at hand i.e. staving off annihilation.
Would 40k have been better if there had always been female Astartes? Yes, I think it would suffer less from certain groups and people.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/23 19:35:22
the_scotsman wrote: Do you maybe feel like you're looking for an argument that's easier to defend, and you've picked "in current canon, there are female loyalist astartes" instead of what is actually being discussed in the thread, "current canon that there can only be male loyalist astartes is unimportant and as a restriction doesn't add anything meaningful"
People are arguing against that viewpoint, though, so it's worth defending.
It actually does add something meaningful, though, which is that Astartes cannot leave humanity behind, since Astartes essentially need baseline humans to reproduce. I also fail to see anything meaningful *gained* by changing the setting so that there are female Astartes. Women still feel comfortable with fantastical settings where women are overwhelmingly not in martial roles (ASOIAF/GoT, for example), so I don't think the "representation" angle holds water.
Gert wrote: Show me in any of the recent Codexes where it says SM must be created using male aspirants.
I'm not arguing that that's the case. Show me any example of a female human undergoing the process that turns someone into an Astartes.
Show me the cold hard science that says they can't.
Not this "male hormones and tissue types", the *actual* science, please.
We're dealing with a fictional universe here. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I mean, if you squint and really ignore a lot of the comments made, I suppose you could reach that conclusion.
Is it a massive oversimplification and missing out on a lot of the detail and nuance of the point? Yes, that too.
People were saying that upthread. Go see.
In an abridged comment, or one taken out of context?
As I've said repeatedly in this thread (if you'd care to read it), you're correct, but only when you strip away all of the details and stages.
Why don't you? You're the one claiming that certain aetting background is "non-core."
Sure. Core content is stuff that is repeatedly stated as intrinsic to the faction and how it is described. These are things echoed in GW's content written on the product pages online, or the stuff in the Codexes and rulebook.
If it's stuff that I can find without any sort of digging beyond GW's core product line to play the game, it's core content.
This would mean that Black Library publications are not core content. Campaign books are not core content for a faction. Secondary articles on WarCom are not core content. Lexicanum data is not core content.
Is everything considered core canon? Is some stuff more or less important than others? If so, we have it "in canon" that Leman Russ is a human Imperial Army commander, and not a Primarch. Is that core canon still? If not, what an absolutely tragedy!! 40k is ruined, burnt to ashes, all because Leman Russ is now a Primarch, and not some random army commander! /s
That argument fails because that lore has been explicitly superceded. I'd say nice try, but...
Sure. Let's try backflipping Terminators, and Dark Eldar being in thrall to Slaanesh (C.S. Goto, for both) - neither are explicitly decanonised. Are they also core canon?
40k canon is not all created equal. This much is obvious. And when a certain piece of very old lore, which barely surfaces in secondary publications, let alone in the *actual Codexes* is being touted as "core canon", I'm more than a little doubtful as to the validity of that claim.
It's also supported because there's literally no example of a female human undergoing the process to become an Astartes.
There was also no canon example of non-white Ultramarines until the Dawn of Fire books. Absence of example doesn't necessarily prohibit it from being possible.
The intent when the process was first described was for the Astartes to be all-male
First described, yes. And now, that intent is rather outdated, both in real life, and in how Space Marines are marketed and designed from a faction perspective.
and nowhere has that been contradicted
As said, from a factional design perspective and shift away from those monkly traits they attempted to emulate, it has implicitly changed course to a point now where them being all-male is no longer both an integral part of their design, but actively detrimental to their current marketed design - that being a highly customisable, player-dominated canvas for creative freedom.
I frankly don't care what Space Marines were 40 years ago, because it's not 40 years ago now. Space Marines have changed in their design ethos and philosophy, as well as their marketing power, and those two things combined put them in a position where including women Space Marines (where they were previously excluded for arbitrary reasons) is an entirely sensible choice.
People are arguing against that viewpoint, though, so it's worth defending.
It actually does add something meaningful, though, which is that Astartes cannot leave humanity behind, since Astartes essentially need baseline humans to reproduce. I also fail to see anything meaningful *gained* by changing the setting so that there are female Astartes. Women still feel comfortable with fantastical settings where women are overwhelmingly not in martial roles (ASOIAF/GoT, for example), so I don't think the "representation" angle holds water.
And they would still need baseline humans to reproduce because the Astartes process makes them incapable of reproduction. Astartes aren't human anymore, they don't get all the human features.
As for women feeling comfortable with a fantasy setting (you mention GoT) from my personal experience that is a lie, and the overwhelming majority of fantasy, and indeed GoT fans, are men.
For specific examples, my immediate women family members think it's far too flippant with certain topics and the female characters aren't good.
The "strong female characters" of GoT are almost without fail, all victims of *not nice things* which from my perspective, tells women that to be in a fantasy setting they have to suffer from these *not nice things* in order to be a "strong female character".
If we go into things like Star Wars or Star Trek, characters like Rey or Burnham are decried as Mary Sue's because they do the exact same things that male characters can/have done in the series. Rey, Luke, and even Anakin are all exactly the same in terms of character development.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 19:46:41
You're arguing it's a "core" piece of background, if it's so central to the idea of SM then why is it not present in recent publications of the primary source of faction lore, the SM Codex?
Your side used the word "core," not me.
Again, can you show me an example of a female human undergoing the process to turn into an Astartes? You can't. So it's very much still part of the setting, if not for technical reasons, than for cultural ones. Either way.
Which people? From what I've seen you have massively oversimplified the arguments put across and boiled it down to "no female SM means no women hobbyists", which isn't what posters are saying.
I didn't say that. I'm not responding to this lart as you're misrepresenting my point. Rephrase it more respectfully if you want to engage with me.
Again, while an Astartes may be male it does not preclude the potential for forced sex change. It's horrible and I wouldn't want it in official background but some people like "dark" things like that in 40k. Just because it hasn't been contradicted doesn't mean its been supported either.
You misunderstand me. I'm asking for an example of a human who was female before the process undergoing it - it doesn't exist, and there's no reason to think that the process would cause a sex change.
I don't think that the older stuff should be changed to be "there have always been female Astartes". Not because I believe in the "sanctity of the background" but because it follows the same process as Primaris did. New Thing happens, Old Guard aren't 100% sure of New Thing, New Thing turns out to be necessery and vitally needed, Old Guard grumble a bit but get on with the problems at hand i.e. staving off annihilation.
And Primaris were a bad idea as they turned the Imperium from a decaying, backwards society into one that was progressing. Gender-equal space fascism isn't a good thing.
the_scotsman wrote:To me, "astartes must be all male" is a piece of canon sort of analogous to "space marines don't have antigrav technology save for the Land Speeder STC"
It was definitely canon, and it was definitely a thing GW decided to change with the primaris stuff. As to the "Why"...I can't really say? As to what it adds or detracts from the setting...I don't know, I don't much like the primaris vehicles from a design perspective, I think they're pointlessly busy and kind of look like GI Joe toys, but I've always hated the fact that marine vehicles are just boring dull boxes, theyve never been something I've been actually excited for so my opinion hasn't really changed. But conceptually given that marines are supposed to be this "lightning strike force" having vehicles that hover and can traverse any terrain more quickly than the slower, tracked vehicles the IG and Sisters use makes sense.
Yeah, while I do like the iconic Predator and Vindicator, I won't lie, having these fast moving heavily armed and armoured transports with the capacity to actually fit the bill of a "lightning strike force" feels so much better than chugging along on Rhinos.
Again - feels better. Much like how having women Astartes would feel much better than clinging to some pretty antiquated lore using sketchy arbitrary reasons for why women aren't allowed in the Elite Secret Super Soldier Club.
Hecaton wrote:
the_scotsman wrote: Do you maybe feel like you're looking for an argument that's easier to defend, and you've picked "in current canon, there are female loyalist astartes" instead of what is actually being discussed in the thread, "current canon that there can only be male loyalist astartes is unimportant and as a restriction doesn't add anything meaningful"
People are arguing against that viewpoint, though, so it's worth defending.
Against which viewpoint?
It actually does add something meaningful, though, which is that Astartes cannot leave humanity behind, since Astartes essentially need baseline humans to reproduce.
Adding women Astartes doesn't mean that they'd suddenly be able to reproduce.
While not explicitly mentioned, I believe I have seen it expressed that Space Marines are infertile anyway. And is it not reasonable to assume that Space Marines at current are chemically castrated, or otherwise infertile? Especially seeing as most recruits are pre-pubescent.
Adding women Astartes wouldn't make them suddenly baby makers, and honestly, I really don't appreciate the implication that women=pregnancies.
I also fail to see anything meaningful *gained* by changing the setting so that there are female Astartes.
Emphasising the Imperium's pragmatism and focus on war over any sort of gender segregating, for one.
On another note, I think representation is perfectly meaningful, more so than any justification I can give. But you disagree - why is representation so meaningless to you?
Women still feel comfortable with fantastical settings where women are overwhelmingly not in martial roles (ASOIAF/GoT, for example), so I don't think the "representation" angle holds water.
Have you considered that Brienne of Tarth literally exists to fill that gap? Brienne *is* the representative aspect of that.
Probably the worst example you could have thought of to defend the whole "women like settings where there are no women fighters", considering the amount of formidable female combatants in that series.
You're arguing it's a "core" piece of background, if it's so central to the idea of SM then why is it not present in recent publications of the primary source of faction lore, the SM Codex?
Your side used the word "core," not me.
Actually "our side" didn't. It was Mentlegen324 who used it first, I believe.* They claimed that Space Marines being all male was a "core aspect".
Might want to consider re-reading the thread.
*EDIT: Yes, it was Mentlegen324 - I've linked it in these spoilers for your convenience:
Spoiler:
Mentlegen324 wrote: The difference is those are all external theming placed ontop of the core aspects of a Space Marine, whereas this would be something that's a change to those core aspects of the Space Marines themselves.
Again, can you show me an example of a female human undergoing the process to turn into an Astartes? You can't.
Can you show me a real life human undergoing the process? You can't. It's fictional.
And Primaris were a bad idea as they turned the Imperium from a decaying, backwards society into one that was progressing.
Aw jeez. Shame.
Guess that canon's really sacred though still, right?
Gender-equal space fascism isn't a good thing.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Imperium was always gender-equal. Guardsmen are mixed gender, the High Lords are mixed gender, the Inquisition is mixed gender, the Admech barely *have* gender, the Assassinorum are mixed gender, the Navigators are mixed gender, the Navy are mixed gender, the PDF are mixed gender, etc etc
But why aren't Space Marines? After all - the Imperium clearly isn't institutionally sexist, unless you want to change that sacred sacred lore?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/06/23 19:58:15
Also, for those of you claiming that the setting material saying that Astartes can only be made from boys and not girls is "non-core," that's ridiculous. It's just you inventing the idea that it's some lower tier of canon so it can be ignored.
You've said the idea that it's "non-core" is ridiculous. Ok, explain how it's a "core" part of the background.
Again, can you show me an example of a female human undergoing the process to turn into an Astartes? You can't. So it's very much still part of the setting, if not for technical reasons, than for cultural ones. Either way.
What technical reasons? The made-up science that for some reason excludes female candidates from the process?
I didn't say that. I'm not responding to this lart as you're misrepresenting my point. Rephrase it more respectfully if you want to engage with me.
Show me the quote where a poster on the pro-female SM side of the discussion said that no-female SM is a direct cause of a lack of women hobbyists.
No I did not. Again, stop misrepresenting my words. Everyone else can read the thread and see you're wrong.
See my above point.
You misunderstand me. I'm asking for an example of a human who was female before the process undergoing it - it doesn't exist, and there's no reason to think that the process would cause a sex change.
Why is there no reason to think that? Do you know the intricate details of the creation of a SM? Considering not even GW knows for sure because it's made up pseudoscience, explain how you know this.
And Primaris were a bad idea as they turned the Imperium from a decaying, backwards society into one that was progressing. Gender-equal space fascism isn't a good thing.
That's an opinion chief, I personally like the Primaris. They better fit my view of a SM both aesthetically and narratively. Besides, nearly every single Imperial institution is gender-equal, GW just does a terrible job at making a good showing of female models for those lines.
And BTW, fascism is bad but nobody is advocating for it so why don't you make a proper argument?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 19:57:28
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Show me the cold hard science that says they can't.
Not this "male hormones and tissue types", the *actual* science, please.
We're dealing with a fictional universe here. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to.
It's a fictional process that stretches the bounds of believability in parts. The guys who wrote it weren't biologists, so they didn't go into the science of it to a realistic degree. As a biologist myself, I can think of a few ways one could implement those kinds of changes where it would only work on someone with a y chromosome, so it's not like it's *implausible* that the process only works on boys. And the people who wrote it said it does.
In an abridged comment, or one taken out of context?
As I've said repeatedly in this thread (if you'd care to read it), you're correct, but only when you strip away all of the details and stages.
I believe it was Sgt Smudge saying that anecdotal evidence of blogs and so on was enough.
Other miniature games that approach gender parity in depictions of characters in-game (like Infinity) do not have markedly less male-dominated fanbases, so I don't think that adding female Astartes is going to make women feel more comfortable participating in the hobby.
Sure. Core content is stuff that is repeatedly stated as intrinsic to the faction and how it is described. These are things echoed in GW's content written on the product pages online, or the stuff in the Codexes and rulebook.
If it's stuff that I can find without any sort of digging beyond GW's core product line to play the game, it's core content.
This would mean that Black Library publications are not core content. Campaign books are not core content for a faction. Secondary articles on WarCom are not core content. Lexicanum data is not core content.
Is that agreeable? If not, why so?
I find that delineation to be meaningless. Moreover, let's be clear - there's nothing in any of this material that says that female humans can be made into Astartes, and the lack of any of them at all in the setting implies that while the restriction isn't explicitly stated, it's very much there.
Sure. Let's try backflipping Terminators, and Dark Eldar being in thrall to Slaanesh (C.S. Goto, for both) - neither are explicitly decanonised. Are they also core canon?
The difference is that these are contradicted by setting information that is both more recent and that GW has a more direct hand in. Nowhere has GW said "female Astartes are possible."
There was also no canon example of non-white Ultramarines until the Dawn of Fire books. Absence of example doesn't necessarily prohibit it from being possible.
And if it had previously been stated that all Ultramarines were white, it would be a change. It wasn't.
First described, yes. And now, that intent is rather outdated, both in real life, and in how Space Marines are marketed and designed from a faction perspective.
How it is outdated? It's an artistic choice. Space Marines are still marketed as a right-wing male power fantasy, just less ironically than they used to be.
As said, from a factional design perspective and shift away from those monkly traits they attempted to emulate, it has implicitly changed course to a point now where them being all-male is no longer both an integral part of their design, but actively detrimental to their current marketed design - that being a highly customisable, player-dominated canvas for creative freedom.
I disagree that that is or should be how Astartes are portrayed and marketed.
I frankly don't care what Space Marines were 40 years ago, because it's not 40 years ago now. Space Marines have changed in their design ethos and philosophy, as well as their marketing power, and those two things combined put them in a position where including women Space Marines (where they were previously excluded for arbitrary reasons) is an entirely sensible choice.
Well, I'm not on GW's marketing team, and I don't find it to be a sensible choice from the perspective of making the setting interesting. If your goal is to make the setting as bland and meaningless as possible, like World of Warcraft in space, go ahead, but that ain't me.
It does not and the problem is that it has been mentioned in the Heresy books at one point, I think by Loken, so it's a side publication written by one author. It's sort of heavily implied that SM can't reproduce, especially with baseline humans but if female SM were introduced it could easily be said that the indoctrination and surgery remove any chance of two Astartes reproducing.
The very same books also state how utterly repulsive an Astartes actually is outside of the whole "they are the angels of the Emperor" dealio.
Loken is being watched while training by his personal Remembrancer and she notes that while he is a big sweaty beefcake man during said training, the way he smells is disgusting to the point that any sort of physical attraction is immediately gone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 20:10:15
Gert wrote: And they would still need baseline humans to reproduce because the Astartes process makes them incapable of reproduction.
Does it say that in the current codex?
Very true! It absolutely doesn't go into the details of if Space Marines are castrated or not - I would have to argue that the reason for this is because it's not relevant to the immediate wargame.
However, I would argue that, if we're to assume that Space Marines are built solely for war, and they are conditioned to the point where such mortal pleasures don't interest them, I think it's safe to say sex is off the table, perhaps?
Hecaton wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Show me the cold hard science that says they can't. Not this "male hormones and tissue types", the *actual* science, please.
We're dealing with a fictional universe here. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to.
It's a fictional process that stretches the bounds of believability in parts. The guys who wrote it weren't biologists, so they didn't go into the science of it to a realistic degree. As a biologist myself, I can think of a few ways one could implement those kinds of changes where it would only work on someone with a y chromosome, so it's not like it's *implausible* that the process only works on boys.
But ultimately entirely arbitrary, and based off of no actual real world science that would swing it one way or another - thank you for proving my point.
There is no reason that the Magic Super Soldier Serum Juice shouldn't also work on women. So why doesn't it?
And the people who wrote it said it does.
And? It's an entirely arbitrary decision 40 years ago. Why does that matter?
In an abridged comment, or one taken out of context? As I've said repeatedly in this thread (if you'd care to read it), you're correct, but only when you strip away all of the details and stages.
I believe it was Sgt Smudge saying that anecdotal evidence of blogs and so on was enough.
No, it wasn't. I suggest you read with a little more detail please.
Other miniature games that approach gender parity in depictions of characters in-game (like Infinity) do not have markedly less male-dominated fanbases, so I don't think that adding female Astartes is going to make women feel more comfortable participating in the hobby.
Counterpoint, AoS has a much larger women population than 40k does, as many users in this thread on both sides have alluded to.
Gert wrote: Sure. Core content is stuff that is repeatedly stated as intrinsic to the faction and how it is described. These are things echoed in GW's content written on the product pages online, or the stuff in the Codexes and rulebook.
If it's stuff that I can find without any sort of digging beyond GW's core product line to play the game, it's core content.
This would mean that Black Library publications are not core content. Campaign books are not core content for a faction. Secondary articles on WarCom are not core content. Lexicanum data is not core content.
Is that agreeable? If not, why so?
I find that delineation to be meaningless.
Please elaborate.
Moreover, let's be clear - there's nothing in any of this material that says that female humans can be made into Astartes, and the lack of any of them at all in the setting implies that while the restriction isn't explicitly stated, it's very much there.
Sure, and the lack of black Ultramarines prior to the cover of Dawn of Fire implied that only white dudes could be Ultramarines.
Absence of evidence isn't proof of impossibility in a fictional setting.
Gert wrote: Sure. Let's try backflipping Terminators, and Dark Eldar being in thrall to Slaanesh (C.S. Goto, for both) - neither are explicitly decanonised. Are they also core canon?
The difference is that these are contradicted by setting information that is both more recent and that GW has a more direct hand in.
Really? Show me what contradicted backflipping Terminators?
Nowhere has GW said "female Astartes are possible."
No-one's saying they are possible - only that the evidence against is both hamfisted, and not included in core content.
There was also no canon example of non-white Ultramarines until the Dawn of Fire books. Absence of example doesn't necessarily prohibit it from being possible.
And if it had previously been stated that all Ultramarines were white, it would be a change. It wasn't.
But you're claiming about how we apparently need to show an example of a woman Space Marine as proof - you're implying that we need to show something existing for it to be canon in the first place.
First described, yes. And now, that intent is rather outdated, both in real life, and in how Space Marines are marketed and designed from a faction perspective.
How it is outdated?
Ridiculous pseudoscience and exclusionary content from 40 years ago? Pretty outdated to me.
It's an artistic choice.
Which doesn't make it exempt from artistic criticism.
Space Marines are still marketed as a right-wing male power fantasy, just less ironically than they used to be.
Not from GW, at least - if you're reading any wings into this, have you considered that you're not looking at GW's marketing of them, but rather the right-wing's appropriation of them?
In terms of GW's marketing of them, it varies between cute little funko pops, to the fearsome killing machines of the books. I wouldn't call the funko pop a "rightwing male power fantasy", would you?
Gert wrote: As said, from a factional design perspective and shift away from those monkly traits they attempted to emulate, it has implicitly changed course to a point now where them being all-male is no longer both an integral part of their design, but actively detrimental to their current marketed design - that being a highly customisable, player-dominated canvas for creative freedom.
I disagree that that is or should be how Astartes are portrayed and marketed.
You can disagree, but you're not right. Seriously, look at how they're displayed by GW - "build your own Primaris Chapter" guides, easily convertible models, unpainted Bandai and Funko Pop minis - they're a vessel for creative expression.
Gert wrote: I frankly don't care what Space Marines were 40 years ago, because it's not 40 years ago now. Space Marines have changed in their design ethos and philosophy, as well as their marketing power, and those two things combined put them in a position where including women Space Marines (where they were previously excluded for arbitrary reasons) is an entirely sensible choice.
Well, I'm not on GW's marketing team, and I don't find it to be a sensible choice from the perspective of making the setting interesting.
Why not?
If your goal is to make the setting as bland and meaningless as possible, like World of Warcraft in space, go ahead, but that ain't me.
Why does adding women make a setting bland? Why is the existence of women in a fantasy setting an issue for you?
Also, no idea why you've been tagging Gert in these comments, because they were my points, not theirs. My apologies to Gert for the confusion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: It does not and the problem is that it has been mentioned in the Heresy books at one point, I think by Loken, so it's a side publication written by one author. It's sort of heavily implied that SM can't reproduce, especially with baseline humans but if female SM were introduced it could easily be said that the indoctrination and surgery remove any chance of two Astartes reproducing. The very same books also state how utterly repulsive an Astartes actually is outside of the whole "they are the angels of the Emperor" dealio. Loken is being watched while training by his personal Remembrancer and she notes that while he is a big sweaty beefcake man during said training, the way he smells is disgusting to the point that any sort of physical attraction is immediately gone.
Ah, I had forgotten about that!
So yes, while absolutely not core content, there's definitely reason that Astartes are infertile/sexless anyway.
Again, not that I particularly appreciate the connotation that the previously sexless Space Marines are only sexless because there's no women around, and the moment women put on the power armour, the women Astartes are suddenly being turned into breeding machines - seems awfully reductive of the "role" of women.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/23 20:24:47
Also, I think we are drastically underestimating the sinister nature of FunkoPops. Where is the line drawn? Must all of reality become FunkoPops before they stop?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 20:21:21
Shows what I get for posting a reply then going to sleep. Yes, my initial note about Hecaton's post that I responded to on the beginning of the last page was that the double negative resulted in a meaning to the sentence that didn't seem to mesh with the aggrieved tone that seemed to be present in the post.
To be frank, also, the idea that there should he female Astartes seems to be overwhelmingly pushed by men who claim to speak on behalf of women, not women themselves, which is of course ironic.
Gert and Smudge have responded far more completely to this topic than I can, except to add that I guarantee you that there are people - not necessarily you, mind - who would dismiss womens' opinions on this topic because they see it as an outsider perspective, and those people should have their lore cudgels taken away.
If it helps any, I'm much more non-binary than the days when I came up with CEO Kasen - My honest response to 'what gender are you' is to make a noise like a squig headbutting peanut butter and go "I don't even friggin' know."
The setting is supposed to be dystopian. The more fethed up it is the better.
This is to my mind the one valid lore argument for retaining these sorts of divisions and the only disadvantage of allowing female Astartes - It makes the Imperium seem slightly less of a feudal, backwards hellhole if they have an unexpectedly enlightened view of gender equality. But If you're going to do this, you have to point out, explicitly and clearly, that this institutionalized sexism is a bad thing and that the Imperium is backwards for doing this.
GW does not do this. GW is increasingly positioning the Imperium as a tragic protagonist rather than a farcically awful satire so it can't be taken as a given that a thing must be dystopian just because they're doing it. Additionally, nowhere else are they even doing it lorewise - women can canonically rise to be Guard officers, Inquisitors, and High Lords of Terra; In no other place than Marines, Custodes, and in reverse, Sisters of Battle, is there institutionalized sexism in the Imperium.
So the one 'lore benefit' seems to run counter to the way GW is running the Imperium these days - but even if it hadn't, it hardly outweighs the benefits to the community for allowing women - as Smudge frequently points out, actual, living female-identifying sapient beings - to represent themselves and participate in the power-armor steroid club. There is no good reason for this prohibition to exist any longer, nothing of value to be broken in seeking inclusiveness, and an excellent opportunity to rectify the situation in Primaris.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 22:51:14
"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"
The thing with SoB is that they specifically exist to cheat Imperial law and their entire reason for being is to give the Ecclesiarchy a standing army they aren't supposed to have.
The Decree Passive disallows the Church to maintain men under arms. This was made after Goge Vandire gave himself a huge army and basically did a Heresy 2.0. The architect of the Decree kept Vandire's Brides of the Emperor and turned them into the Adeptus Sororitas both to be in line with having no "men" under arms and to give the Ecclesiarchy actual weight and power when it came to defending its interests. They fit perfectly into the dumb things the Imperium does without it being exclusionary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 23:04:34
Yeah, the Sisters existing the way they do is entirely based on the manipulation of someone in the Imperium not using gender-neutral pronouns, and finding a loophole within that.
Them being women in setting isn't anything to do with the Imperium saying "the only way women can wear power armour is when they join the Sororitas", it's "aw jeez, someone took RAW way too literally".
It's a great piece of worldbuilding, and honestly kind of amusing, as well as being completely ridiculous - which makes it perfectly fitting for 40k.
Space Marines just not having women just feels spiteful, more than anything else, either as an arbitrary "our biology says no", or a "haha, no women allowed here, sucks to be you" (even though such blatant gender segregation doesn't really exist anywhere in the Imperium as a whole). There's no worldbuilding it contributes to, no aesthetic benefit or wider thematic point, and just seems more like a slap in the face than an organic, natural piece of worldbuilding.
Not that a fictional world should come before real world people feeling excluded in the first place, I may add.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 23:49:15
And they would still need baseline humans to reproduce because the Astartes process makes them incapable of reproduction. Astartes aren't human anymore, they don't get all the human features.
It doesn't have to make them incapable of reproduction.
Gert wrote: As for women feeling comfortable with a fantasy setting (you mention GoT) from my personal experience that is a lie, and the overwhelming majority of fantasy, and indeed GoT fans, are men.
Whatever. My point is that there are a higher percentage of female GoT/ASOIAF fans than female Warhammer 40k fans.
Gert wrote: For specific examples, my immediate women family members think it's far too flippant with certain topics and the female characters aren't good.
The "strong female characters" of GoT are almost without fail, all victims of *not nice things* which from my perspective, tells women that to be in a fantasy setting they have to suffer from these *not nice things* in order to be a "strong female character".
If we go into things like Star Wars or Star Trek, characters like Rey or Burnham are decried as Mary Sue's because they do the exact same things that male characters can/have done in the series. Rey, Luke, and even Anakin are all exactly the same in terms of character development.
Sorry, heroism requires going through rough gak. If you find that unacceptable, you don't want your characters to be heroes. That's why Rey's story fails as a heroic journey, and it's why Brienne's works.
The viewpoint that the current fluff, as it is, forbids female Astartes.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: While not explicitly mentioned, I believe I have seen it expressed that Space Marines are infertile anyway. And is it not reasonable to assume that Space Marines at current are chemically castrated, or otherwise infertile? Especially seeing as most recruits are pre-pubescent.
Maybe they're hyper-fertile, with all those hormones pumped into them.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Adding women Astartes wouldn't make them suddenly baby makers, and honestly, I really don't appreciate the implication that women=pregnancies.
There was no such implication. You're faking offense on behalf of women to seem more right; your argument is still bankrupt and it's honestly embarrassing on your part. Are you really so dense that you don't understand that it takes males *and* females for sexual reproduction to occur in mammals? That's what I was talking about, and the fact that you deceptively tried to spin it as sexism on my part just makes you look like a charlatan trying to score white knight points.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Emphasising the Imperium's pragmatism and focus on war over any sort of gender segregating, for one.
The Imperium is not pragmatic; it is needlessly cruel and self-degrading.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Have you considered that Brienne of Tarth literally exists to fill that gap? Brienne *is* the representative aspect of that.
Probably the worst example you could have thought of to defend the whole "women like settings where there are no women fighters", considering the amount of formidable female combatants in that series.
Brienne is pretty much the only Westerosi woman in that series who's good at fighting, and the series draws heavily from the actual sexism of historical medieval Europe in its depiction of the state of women. Brienne's situation is presented as unique within the setting - her being a warrior woman is almost unheard of in her society. Somehow women seem to like this book series and television adaptation more than Warhammer 40k.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/06/24 01:53:01
No one is saying “Women space marines already exist.”
What’s being said is “Women space marines SHOULD exist.”
You’re asking us to prove something we haven’t stated or even implied.
Edit: Exceptions for the earliest days of 40k, before much modern fluff was established. There were some women marines then, so I’ve been told, but no women marines exist in modern 40k.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/24 01:37:34
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
And they would still need baseline humans to reproduce because the Astartes process makes them incapable of reproduction. Astartes aren't human anymore, they don't get all the human features.
It doesn't have to make them incapable of reproduction.
Gert wrote: As for women feeling comfortable with a fantasy setting (you mention GoT) from my personal experience that is a lie, and the overwhelming majority of fantasy, and indeed GoT fans, are men.
Whatever. My point is that there are a higher percentage of female GoT/ASOIAF fans than female Warhammer 40k fans.
Gert wrote: For specific examples, my immediate women family members think it's far too flippant with certain topics and the female characters aren't good.
The "strong female characters" of GoT are almost without fail, all victims of *not nice things* which from my perspective, tells women that to be in a fantasy setting they have to suffer from these *not nice things* in order to be a "strong female character".
If we go into things like Star Wars or Star Trek, characters like Rey or Burnham are decried as Mary Sue's because they do the exact same things that male characters can/have done in the series. Rey, Luke, and even Anakin are all exactly the same in terms of character development.
Sorry, heroism requires going through rough gak. If you find that unacceptable, you don't want your characters to be heroes. That's why Rey's story fails as a heroic journey, and it's why Brienne's works.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Can you show me a real life human undergoing the process? You can't. It's fictional.
Of course. But that statement doesn't detract from the fact that the process of creating an Astartes has never been shown working on a female human, and it has been outright stated to not do so.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Aw jeez. Shame.
Guess that canon's really sacred though still, right?
I don't want to see the setting turned into homogenized media trash *even more*.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Imperium was always gender-equal. Guardsmen are mixed gender, the High Lords are mixed gender, the Inquisition is mixed gender, the Admech barely *have* gender, the Assassinorum are mixed gender, the Navigators are mixed gender, the Navy are mixed gender, the PDF are mixed gender, etc etc
But why aren't Space Marines? After all - the Imperium clearly isn't institutionally sexist, unless you want to change that sacred sacred lore?
Neither are Custodes. It's just a conceit of the setting, you're gonna have to learn to live with it.
You’re asking us to prove something we haven’t stated or even implied.
And I disagree.
JNAProductions wrote: Edit: Exceptions for the earliest days of 40k, before much modern fluff was established. There were some women marines then, so I’ve been told, but no women marines exist in modern 40k.
There was some non-GW fan content along those lines that got published in a fanzine, but that was before the modern conception of what a Space Marine is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Space Marines just not having women just feels spiteful, more than anything else, either as an arbitrary "our biology says no", or a "haha, no women allowed here, sucks to be you" (even though such blatant gender segregation doesn't really exist anywhere in the Imperium as a whole). There's no worldbuilding it contributes to, no aesthetic benefit or wider thematic point, and just seems more like a slap in the face than an organic, natural piece of worldbuilding.
I mean, the Emperor being a gynophobe makes sense, to be honest.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Not that a fictional world should come before real world people feeling excluded in the first place, I may add.
Art's mission isn't to make people feel included, and however trite, the 40k setting is art.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Dude, Hecaton, you are getting really close to crossing the line, as so many from your side have already done. The personal attacks are unwarranted, and the relentless assertion that women don't have autonomy over their bodies is disgusting, and wrong. 40k's Imperium might be many things, but they don't really go out of their way to show that women are powerless over their bodies or autonomy. You are thinking of Chaos.
When did I say any of that? You're just making stuff up.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/06/24 01:43:52
Arguing sanctity of lore is a stronger argument in a work of literature or a historical period piece, or otherwise the creative vision of a single author. 40K is not these things. 40K is a still-marketed living universe now with an advancing storyline with a thousand hands on the wheel, and without changing a single piece of 'historical lore' there is no reason that this story cannot advance in the direction of allowing women as marines.
Hecaton wrote: Of course. But that statement doesn't detract from the fact that the process of creating an Astartes has never been shown working on a female human, and it has been outright stated to not do so.
And the point is that this doesn't matter. Not only do they change the canon when it suits them, but GW have written quite nicely into themselves a method they could bypass this so-called 'issue' because the process for becoming a Marine is clearly not a fixed thing. Frankly I dislike the hell out of the Primaris too, but if Cawl figured out that his process worked on women, that'd give the Primaris more reason to exist than just shinier more expensive models.
Hecaton wrote: I don't want to see the setting turned into homogenized media trash *even more*.
This seems a bit of a depressingly common misconception - Inclusiveness is not inherently 'trashy,' and being male-only does not elevate the Marines in any way. Yes, inclusiveness can be and has been done poorly, but the problem in those cases is not the idea of inclusiveness, the problem in those cases is poor writing - often caused, I might suggest, by lack of exposure to other mindsets or cultures or a poor grasp of what 'inclusion' means. I would not judge the merit of inclusiveness purely on the basis of the worst possible way it could be implemented.
Even if GW were to bollock it all up, it doesn't change the fact that women should be allowed to be part of the most flexible and otherwise diverse force in the game. The benefits are immense in any setup that encourages you to invest yourself in Your Dudes. In fact, I've seen it suggested on this thread that if female marines existed, then if Your Dudes were all guys, that'd be a more meaningful choice - perhaps painting a chapter as traditionalist, or gay, or trans-men, or based on an Earth culture with a male-only warrior class while still allowing women who want to be represented have Their Dudettes.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: It's just a conceit of the setting, you're gonna have to learn to live with it.
I would suggest that this is no longer a conceit of the setting - and that Primaris are the reason we no longer should have to live with it.
"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"
CEO Kasen wrote: Arguing sanctity of lore is a stronger argument in a work of literature or a historical period piece, or otherwise the creative vision of a single author. 40K is not these things. 40K is a still-marketed living universe now with an advancing storyline with a thousand hands on the wheel, and without changing a single piece of 'historical lore' there is no reason that this story cannot advance in the direction of allowing women as marines.
There's also no reason it should. When the people arguing for it are saying things like, paraphrased "a bunch of men together with no women is a bad look" I question their motives.
CEO Kasen wrote: And the point is that this doesn't matter. Not only do they change the canon when it suits them, but GW have written quite nicely into themselves a method they could bypass this so-called 'issue' because the process for becoming a Marine is clearly not a fixed thing. Frankly I dislike the hell out of the Primaris too, but if Cawl figured out that his process worked on women, that'd give the Primaris more reason to exist than just shinier more expensive models.
The point is that they *shouldn't* be changing the canon that whimsically.
This seems a bit of a depressingly common misconception - Inclusiveness is not inherently 'trashy,' and being male-only does not elevate the Marines in any way. Yes, inclusiveness can be and has been done poorly, but the problem in those cases is not the idea of inclusiveness, the problem in those cases is poor writing - often caused, I might suggest, by lack of exposure to other mindsets or cultures or a poor grasp of what 'inclusion' means. I would not judge the merit of inclusiveness purely on the basis of the worst possible way it could be implemented.
Inclusiveness is not inherently trashy, but trying to make your product as mass-market appealing as possible almost certainly is. Having Astartes be male-only *does* elevate the setting, as it allows you to ask questions about why that is, how people in the setting feel about it, and explore whether or not people are content with that reality.
CEO Kasen wrote: Even if GW were to bollock it all up, it doesn't change the fact that women should be allowed to be part of the most flexible and otherwise diverse force in the game.
It's not a fact at all. There's no particular reason to support it.
I'd say that this is just evidence that Astartes's ubiquity in the setting has poisoned it.
CEO Kasen wrote: The benefits are immense in any setup that encourages you to invest yourself in Your Dudes. In fact, I've seen it suggested on this thread that if female marines existed, then if Your Dudes were all guys, that'd be a more meaningful choice - perhaps painting a chapter as traditionalist, or gay, or trans-men, or based on an Earth culture with a male-only warrior class while still allowing women who want to be represented have Their Dudettes.
I think the idea that people can only express themselves in the hobby by what color they paint their fascists' sci-fi armor pretty pathetic. I think the setting should focus less on Astartes, and Astartes should be kept as male-only.
