Afterwards, amateur players are staring down an intense rules crunch—understanding the core mechanics of the game, but also the specific nuances and eccentricities of the faction of your choice. "You've got to learn two to three pages of rules per unit," says Ostrander. But that still doesn't account for the person you're playing against, who might have a precise, expert-level counterpunch cued up for your strategy of choice. That dynamic is what makes wargaming fascinating, of course, but it can also be disempowering for a newcomer—especially if that newcomer already feels like an outsider due to their gender identity.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't know why I should be trying to appease people who would be toxic in the first place. The problem is with *them*, not with me.

Yes, I'm absolutely there to criticise the people being toxic, because they're the ones causing the problems, not the women or me for calling them out on their toxicity.
…
But a lore change happening still isn't an excuse to be toxic, and they're very much in the wrong for doing it. Feeling put out, but ultimately understanding that "hey, I guess real people matter more than some lore" is normal. Getting toxic over that is no-one's fault but their own, and I really shouldn't have to stop speaking the truth because some people would turn toxic over it. That's not my fault.
…
Potentially, but if they're being toxic to women *because some lore got changed*, can't you see how that's exactly the kind of people we don't want to be around women in the first place?
If we're trying to make a lasting change in the environment to make things better for women, then we need to be calling out and exposing those kinds of people who *would* get toxic at women because of a lore change.
…
Making the environment better for women would absolutely include calling out the people who used a lore change as an excuse to be toxic though.

I feel that this attitude is not actually going to help the problem?
Before we continue too far, the people I am concerned with appeasing are the ones who would feel put out by politics interfering with their hobby. These people would be fine if the lore progressed in a way which seemed in-keeping with 40k tradition and included female marines (Cawl dun it), and would be annoyed if it was instead given a token “women have always been marines” and a big explanation of all the political doesn’t-matter-a-toss-in-the-game reasons for changing their game. These are the people who aren’t educated on the problems that we’ve been discussing, and would have been happy for it to continue as-is, not because they don’t want female marines, but that they’ve never considered their absence an issue.
The people who outright support female marines are not an issue, and the people who outright oppose them can’t be helped. We’re talking about the vast majority of people in the hobby who don’t even care – it’s not an issue for them or their friends, and they’ve never even thought about it, and they don’t even know that there’s 60+ pages of discussions about it on dakka (and more elsewhere). These are the people we want to bring onto our side.
So, back to your comments!
You’ve mixed up “identifiying the problem” with “identifying the solution”. I have presented you with a group of people who could potentially oppose the change if it were made for outright political reasons, and you have decided that it is more important to make the political statement than to make the change actually improve anything.
Let’s say the change is made with a political statement about it and a hasty rewrite of the lore to shoehorn them in – my worst case scenario.
The people who don’t like how they changed it will be outspoken about this. Perhaps they aren’t sexist, but they constantly make comments and jokes about how the imperium is going PC, how the change was only made so they could have girl space marines. They aren’t saying “women can go away”, but the entire environment of GW stores could end up having a “women interfered with our stuff” vibe which could have been avoided just by not making the change outwardly political. That will put women off – if they keep hearing jokes and remarks about how marines were changed just for women to be there, it won’t seem welcoming.
So yes, you have successfully identified that the problem is with them, not you. What you haven’t done is offer any solution to that problem. And don’t say “we get rid of them”, because that will never happen – people are far too heavily invested (financially and emotionally) in 40k to just leave.
Calling them out relies entirely on them not being the majority. The more people fall in the “I don’t like this change” category, regardless of their reasons, the more difficult it is to expose the people who really need to be called out. If I said “I don’t like how they made the change, because it wasn’t about 40k, it was about politics, they just erased 40k history to make a political change” I don’t expect to be called out as a toxic sexist for it!

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
That's the thing, I'm not. I'm trying to expose and call out those people who *have* those exclusionary thoughts who haven't acted, and hide behind "well, it's just the lore!"

I'm not directing this at you, you've made this very clear that you are pro-women Astartes regardless. My point is towards the people who claim to only care about the lore, but use that as a mask to hide their exclusionary beliefs.

I think that the hole in your logic is the idea that the only reason someone can be opposed to a change involving genders is because of sexist views. I am the shining beacon of hope which illuminates that hole – as you said, I’m pro-woman Astartes, and yet I’m against making the change if it is done politically. I am the dinosaur bone that disproves a young earth, the overwhelming-scientific-evidence that disproves the flat earth.
If you make this change in a way specifically designed to bait people who have exclusionary views into the open, then you are doing this not only for purely political views, but with an actual goal of exposing women in the hobby to a worse environment, just so that you can point at the people who make it toxic and shout “Heretic!” in the hopes that enough others will join you and purge them?
I fail to see how this approach works with your original remarks about how female astartes are needed to combat the idea that women are somehow outside of the norm – that by seeing female models more, the people in GW stores will stop acting like women are from another planet.
You started this with aspirations of effectively re-educating those in the hobby who don’t even realise their way of thinking is exclusionary, and now you’re suggesting that we make the change in such a jarring way that these same people can be cast out and shunned.
You said that this was about making the environment better, but now it seems like a set of criteria for some sort of societal/political purge. Which I really, really cannot get behind.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You're right! There doesn't *need* to be a point made about it other than it just *happening* - so it doesn't need a lore explanation either!

I don’t think you understand how it works to change things in 40k?
Without the lore they are just lumps of plastic. The lore is what ties it all together – without it GW would have fallen flat years ago. Most people are more invested in the lore than anything else, even if they don’t realise.
“it doesn’t need a lore explanation” is the exact situation we’re in now. There’s no current lore explaining marines genders either way, so if you think it doesn’t need a lore explanation, just go ahead and make female marines. It’s worked so well for everyone else without a lore explanation [/s]

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'm not advocating that GW make a big public statement. Far from it. I *don't* want GW to make a big statement on the matter, and would much rather that they literally just include women Space Marines without any kind of mess or hassle. No lore reason, no public comment, no flashing neon sign. They just exist now, and that's the end of the matter.

That's what I'm after. If people read into that as political, that was their choice to read into it that way, and if they want to be toxic about that, that's on them.

Ah, it seems I’ve misunderstood you when you’ve said about making a public statement about how it was wrong to exclude women and that they are making changes to amend it.
But again with the “no lore reason”? Why not? Why do you want to make this pill difficult to swallow when it could be so easy? I was being a little sarcastic when I suggested this was a political/societal purge, but now…

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes, I'm absolutely agreed, except on the lore front, because making a big deal about it in the lore feels exactly like what you describe with GW "shouting about it". There doesn't need to be any statements beyond "this is a thing".

The only problem there is that people know now that it isn’t a thing. They will wonder what changed, and if no in-lore explanation appears, then people will look elsewhere.
The majority of people would accept “Cawl dun it” as a reason for there being female marines now. If they just turn up one day, then people will ask “What? I thought that marines could only be men?”, and when no reasons appear in-game, they will assume the reason is elsewhere, and you get the political backlash.
The lore reasons don’t have to be sung about – I’m not looking for a single story (which would be a bit token) but for the next ‘dex to feature female marines throughout, perhaps with a small bit in the primaris creation lore which explains how Cawl made the process work on male and female candidates. It can be there if people go looking for it, rather than being splashed about everywhere. I agree that a subtle change without remark is best, but I also think it needs to have its in-game reasons!

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I think I wasn't quite clear - it's not that there *aren't* identifiers, but that the vast majority of those identifiers wouldn't be visible under a set of Mark X Tacticus power armour.

Ah, 100% agree with you there. Power armour is power armour, the people inside don’t change it! (except chaos, but then that’s different…)

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't see that it would add to this issue, because Space Marines aren't a sideline faction. They're the faction that is presented to *everyone* by virtue of being the flagship.

But will it seem like that is why they are being presented to her if the store offers her any army as long as it has female models?
It’s more an issue of the stores keepers than the change though, but worth considering!

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'm advocating for women Space Marines to just *exist*. No mess, no hassle, no lore explanation. As you said - it will become visible and obvious on its own.

The problem there is that they would stick out like a sore thumb.
Everything in 40k has lore reasons for being there. Do we want to make female marines the exception?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But why? Why does something need to be good because of lore reasons to be justifiable?

Because most people in the game don’t give a monkeys about the politics. Meanwhile, most people in the game care a lot about the lore. If you want people to accept something, you do it in a way which they are most likely to accept, regardless of whether they should accept it anyway.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
It's not implying that at all - having better representation isn't any more political than not having that representation there in the first place.

You’re not intentionally implying it, and I certainly don’t think you mean it!
Saying that the reason for something to change is because society told you to is basically saying that the only reason you made the change was to shut society up about it. It’s exactly like when a child comes over to you and says, “My mum says I have to apologise”. Are they really apologising? Are they really sorry?
If you make female marines a thing because it makes sense, and add to the lore to make them make sense in-universe, the ulterior motives of representation will still work out, but the change will already be running with the pack, as it were, not standing around wondering where it belongs in the running order as the rest of the game whips by.
I guess I just don’t understand the idea of making this change, whilst trying to make it seem unassuming and perfectly normal, but wanting to do so in a different way to every other change that has every happened?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The thing is, that's down to the people on how they respond. If they're going to be toxic over a lore change, what else would they be toxic over?

But you have been suggesting that we don’t even change the lore, that we just plonk female marines in and don’t offer any explanation.
These people aren’t being toxic over a lore change, they’re being toxic over a political change.
“Toxic” is a passive thing. It’s every joke they make about how it was done to make the imperium PC, every “I want >X<!” “oh, just stick it in and say that >your faction< didn’t represent >X<!”.
Frankly those sound much more toxic than saying “I want >X<”, “oh, just stick it in and say Cawl made >X< from old technology!”
Notice how the first jokes are about politics and real life, so can upset real people, and the second one is about 40k lore, and is a joke about how Cawl is making new things all the time.
I’d rather see people joking about Cawl dun it than joking about real issues like representation.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Personally, I'd want to see a third response:
"Oh, yeah. That's pretty cool."

No need for lore, and no need to ever say "oh, it was just to include more women". Let people read whatever they want to into it, justify it how they like, because they'll do that anyway. If people want to ascribe a political motive to it, they'll do so with or without the lore. Ultimately, just let it be.

But then you have to consider that, without a viable alternative, everyone who hears that it was political will believe it to be so.
You don’t offer them any counter arguments. If someone toxic says “they only added female marines to get women into the hobby”, what counter argument will the good guys have to shut them up and make them feel like their views are not valid? That’s the goal isn’t it – shut up the people who are against it? So what will the good guys say?
“Actually, no, they just did it for… no reason, I guess?”
Or
“Actually, Cawl did >blah blah< and then they attacked >bleh bleh< and now the imperium is getting stronger but has attracted more attention from chaos so there will be more fighting and >lore lore lore<
Which sounds like a stronger argument that it wasn’t done for politics?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:I don't know why I should be trying to appease people who would be toxic in the first place. The problem is with *them*, not with me.

Yes, I'm absolutely there to criticise the people being toxic, because they're the ones causing the problems, not the women or me for calling them out on their toxicity.
…
But a lore change happening still isn't an excuse to be toxic, and they're very much in the wrong for doing it. Feeling put out, but ultimately understanding that "hey, I guess real people matter more than some lore" is normal. Getting toxic over that is no-one's fault but their own, and I really shouldn't have to stop speaking the truth because some people would turn toxic over it. That's not my fault.
…
Potentially, but if they're being toxic to women *because some lore got changed*, can't you see how that's exactly the kind of people we don't want to be around women in the first place?
If we're trying to make a lasting change in the environment to make things better for women, then we need to be calling out and exposing those kinds of people who *would* get toxic at women because of a lore change.
…
Making the environment better for women would absolutely include calling out the people who used a lore change as an excuse to be toxic though.

I feel that this attitude is not actually going to help the problem?
Before we continue too far, the people I am concerned with appeasing are the ones who would feel put out by politics interfering with their hobby.

These are likely also the same people who would see including women Space Marines as "political" regardless of if a lore reason was given or not.

If someone's immediate reaction to women being introduced with no fanfare is "oh, that's that political SJW nonsense", they'll read into that belief regardless whatever GW tells them, because they've made it abundantly clear that including women is ""political"". And I can't fix that.

I'm sorry, but it's not the whole "politics interfering with the hobby" that's the problem really, it's that they'd simply see including women as "political", and that's frankly just grim.

These people would be fine if the lore progressed in a way which seemed in-keeping with 40k tradition and included female marines (Cawl dun it), and would be annoyed if it was instead given a token “women have always been marines” and a big explanation of all the political doesn’t-matter-a-toss-in-the-game reasons for changing their game.

They accepted "this has always been a thing for Marines" with Centurions, grav-guns, Stormravens, etc etc. The issue is that they regard women as "political", and that's the problem.

No amount of "lore says XYZ" will change the fact that they don't consider women to be simply natural, and must be "political". And that's the attitude that I want to address and call out.

The people who outright support female marines are not an issue, and the people who outright oppose them can’t be helped. We’re talking about the vast majority of people in the hobby who don’t even care – it’s not an issue for them or their friends, and they’ve never even thought about it, and they don’t even know that there’s 60+ pages of discussions about it on dakka (and more elsewhere). These are the people we want to bring onto our side.

Except they clearly *do* care - they care enough to ascribe "political" motivations for an unexplained introduction of women into the Space Marines. They aren't "neutral", and they will gladly support an unequal system over an inclusive one - and that's the issue.

I would *like* to hope that your estimate of how large the group is that would actually turn toxic is much larger than the actual number, I would *like* to believe that, while there might be some grumbling, people would just get on with their lives and accept women Space Marines as normal without any fanfare, but whoever *does* genuinely turn toxic over that was a time bomb waiting to happen, and as far as I'm concerned, They Will Not Be Missed.

You’ve mixed up “identifiying the problem” with “identifying the solution”. I have presented you with a group of people who could potentially oppose the change if it were made for outright political reasons, and you have decided that it is more important to make the political statement than to make the change actually improve anything.

Sure, but I'm not saying to telegraph it as "outright political". All I'm saying is that it doesn't need a lore explanation.

Let’s say the change is made with a political statement about it and a hasty rewrite of the lore to shoehorn them in – my worst case scenario.
The people who don’t like how they changed it will be outspoken about this. Perhaps they aren’t sexist, but they constantly make comments and jokes about how the imperium is going PC, how the change was only made so they could have girl space marines. They aren’t saying “women can go away”, but the entire environment of GW stores could end up having a “women interfered with our stuff” vibe which could have been avoided just by not making the change outwardly political. That will put women off – if they keep hearing jokes and remarks about how marines were changed just for women to be there, it won’t seem welcoming.

Right, but that's not the scenario I'm describing.

The scenario I'm describing is the rewrite of the lore to "shoehorn" women in (horrible choice of words, because simply featuring women isn't "shoehorning". Gender neutrality is the norm, not gender exclusivity), and that's it. No grand political statement, no big speech, no parade. Literally just a section of text featuring Space Marines with female pronouns, and some women-presenting heads. No extra attention drawn to it.

If the people you describe make comments about how "it's gone PC" or how "women interfered with our stuff" when no political statement has been issued, that is a sure fire sign that they weren't exactly making those comments in good faith. Simply including women isn't "going PC" or "there's an evil cabal of women interfering", but if they have those beliefs about no statement whatsoever, they would assuredly have that same reaction if the lore was updated to "allow" it, and argue that the lore being updated was "going PC" or "only made to have girl Space Marines", because "women interfered with out stuff".

Those kinds of people will *always* make those arguments. It's not worth trying to reach them, because they'll call anything "political", even a lore development.

So yes, you have successfully identified that the problem is with them, not you. What you haven’t done is offer any solution to that problem. And don’t say “we get rid of them”, because that will never happen – people are far too heavily invested (financially and emotionally) in 40k to just leave.
Calling them out relies entirely on them not being the majority. The more people fall in the “I don’t like this change” category, regardless of their reasons, the more difficult it is to expose the people who really need to be called out. If I said “I don’t like how they made the change, because it wasn’t about 40k, it was about politics, they just erased 40k history to make a political change” I don’t expect to be called out as a toxic sexist for it!

If the "majority" of people would turn toxic towards women simply because they were included in Space Marines without a lore justification, I don't think this is even a safe hobby for women at that point.

I don't know, maybe I was being optimistic, maybe a little naive, but I genuinely was under the illusion that *most* people wouldn't turn toxic and start being resentful towards women if suddenly little plastic dollies could now have women heads on them without any explanation or political commentary. If I'm wrong on that, and it turns out that people care enough about their little plastic toys needing some made up words to say they can now have women's heads, and if they don't get those made-up words, they'll be toxic towards women, maybe this isn't a safe space for women at all.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:That's the thing, I'm not. I'm trying to expose and call out those people who *have* those exclusionary thoughts who haven't acted, and hide behind "well, it's just the lore!"

I'm not directing this at you, you've made this very clear that you are pro-women Astartes regardless. My point is towards the people who claim to only care about the lore, but use that as a mask to hide their exclusionary beliefs.

I think that the hole in your logic is the idea that the only reason someone can be opposed to a change involving genders is because of sexist views. I am the shining beacon of hope which illuminates that hole – as you said, I’m pro-woman Astartes, and yet I’m against making the change if it is done politically. I am the dinosaur bone that disproves a young earth, the overwhelming-scientific-evidence that disproves the flat earth.

I have one question to ask: if, as I described, women Space Marines became a thing, with no lore "development", but also no big political statement from GW - you go to sleep, and the next day, women Space Marines are just there - would you be toxic towards women? Resentful? Would you immediately call the inclusion of women a "political" change, and blame women for it?

Or would you just shrug your shoulders, and move on, and enjoy 40k regardless?

What comes first to you: enjoying the hobby and it's inclusivity, or kicking up a fuss because the lore was changed and no-one told you?

If you make this change in a way specifically designed to bait people who have exclusionary views into the open, then you are doing this not only for purely political views, but with an actual goal of exposing women in the hobby to a worse environment, just so that you can point at the people who make it toxic and shout “Heretic!” in the hopes that enough others will join you and purge them?

Hopefully, there shouldn't *be* anyone to "bait", as you put it.

But if you're implying that there *are* people with exclusionary views, and they would *still* be sticking around, lurking, having those exclusionary views while I'm simultaneously saying to women "yeah, this is a safe space, you're totally welcome here!", then it's not really a safe space, is it? If there's people with exclusionary views sticking around, then I'm not really fixing the problem, I'm just sweeping the people with exclusionary views under the rug.

I fail to see how this approach works with your original remarks about how female astartes are needed to combat the idea that women are somehow outside of the norm – that by seeing female models more, the people in GW stores will stop acting like women are from another planet.
You started this with aspirations of effectively re-educating those in the hobby who don’t even realise their way of thinking is exclusionary, and now you’re suggesting that we make the change in such a jarring way that these same people can be cast out and shunned.

I can't "re-educate" people who would see literally just including women as this SJW political takeover of their hobby, because those same people would always hold those beliefs, lore or not.

I am not advocating for anything "jarring". I am not advocating for a big political speech. I am literally just saying that some Space Marines should be able to be women, and that be reflected. If that is "jarring", then why wouldn't Cawl suddenly being able to whip up new women recruits also be "jarring" to those people?

You said that this was about making the environment better, but now it seems like a set of criteria for some sort of societal/political purge. Which I really, really cannot get behind.

Quick question, how am I supposed to make the environment better without calling out the people who hold exclusionary views? What, do I just "live and let live", when *they're* the ones incapable of letting women "live and let live"?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You're right! There doesn't *need* to be a point made about it other than it just *happening* - so it doesn't need a lore explanation either!

I don’t think you understand how it works to change things in 40k?

You might be mistaken. GW have made it very clear that they can change things without the lore needing to back it up constantly.

Grav-guns? They exist now.
Centurions? They exist now.
Stormravens? They exist now.
Scions? They exist now.
Celestian Sacresants? They exist now.
Perpetuals? They exist now.

GW can just add things without needing the lore. I don't see why they can't do that with women Space Marines.

Without the lore they are just lumps of plastic. The lore is what ties it all together – without it GW would have fallen flat years ago. Most people are more invested in the lore than anything else, even if they don’t realise.

And if they're more invested in the lore than in letting women be a part of the hobby, is that not a pretty messed up set of priorities?

“it doesn’t need a lore explanation” is the exact situation we’re in now. There’s no current lore explaining marines genders either way, so if you think it doesn’t need a lore explanation, just go ahead and make female marines. It’s worked so well for everyone else without a lore explanation [/s]

Well, not quite true. There *are* lore explanations explaining Marines being all-male, but they're:
- Inconsistent
- Obscure and not put in the focus
- Thematically incongruous
- Utterly arbitrary

It's *because* there is "lore" explaining why women can't be Space Marines that people get ganged up on when they make women Space Marine conversions, and told it's "non-canon".

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes, I'm absolutely agreed, except on the lore front, because making a big deal about it in the lore feels exactly like what you describe with GW "shouting about it". There doesn't need to be any statements beyond "this is a thing".

The only problem there is that people know now that it isn’t a thing. They will wonder what changed, and if no in-lore explanation appears, then people will look elsewhere.

So, what - your solution is to essentially lie and tell them that "we're totally not being political, look, Cawl did it!"?

I don't think I like the idea of lying to hide my motivations.

I'd much rather let people just come up with their own reasons, and if they say "oh, it's political, guess this justifies me going out and being toxic towards women", that's more of an indictment on them, surely?

The majority of people would accept “Cawl dun it” as a reason for there being female marines now. If they just turn up one day, then people will ask “What? I thought that marines could only be men?”, and when no reasons appear in-game, they will assume the reason is elsewhere, and you get the political backlash.

I don't know. I say this with all respect to you, I really do, and I know that you're pro-women Astartes, which is great - but I do think you're perhaps a little optimistic/naive about how many people would "accept" the Cawl was just able to make women Space Marines without calling that lore development itself "political".

What I see happening is that the same people you describe as looking for "political" motives, if there were no lore explanation, would call the lore explanation "political" as well, and we'd still be stuck with people who were crying politics at us.

The lore reasons don’t have to be sung about – I’m not looking for a single story (which would be a bit token) but for the next ‘dex to feature female marines throughout, perhaps with a small bit in the primaris creation lore which explains how Cawl made the process work on male and female candidates. It can be there if people go looking for it, rather than being splashed about everywhere. I agree that a subtle change without remark is best, but I also think it needs to have its in-game reasons!

I definitely agree that subtlety is the move to go here, but I fear that no explanation will ever be enough to stop those who would call adding women "political" from keeping on doing so. That's all.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'm advocating for women Space Marines to just *exist*. No mess, no hassle, no lore explanation. As you said - it will become visible and obvious on its own.

The problem there is that they would stick out like a sore thumb.
Everything in 40k has lore reasons for being there. Do we want to make female marines the exception?

I don't see why they would stick out like a sore thumb. T'au have women, with no explicit lore "reason". Eldar have women, with no "lore reason". Dark Eldar have women, with no "lore reason". Guardsmen have women, with no "lore reason". Genestealer Cults have women, with no "lore reason".* Women existing in 40k doesn't need a lore reason, because we don't need a lore reason for men existing.

I'm not sure how they'd stick out at all.

*well, Guardsmen especially should have more women represented, but regardless, they *have* women, and no lore reason other than "of course they have women".

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But why? Why does something need to be good because of lore reasons to be justifiable?

Because most people in the game don’t give a monkeys about the politics. Meanwhile, most people in the game care a lot about the lore. If you want people to accept something, you do it in a way which they are most likely to accept, regardless of whether they should accept it anyway.

Again, you're talking about appeasement. If I have to appease people just to stop women getting threatened in the hobby, maybe I can't make the hobby a safe space in the first place?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
It's not implying that at all - having better representation isn't any more political than not having that representation there in the first place.

You’re not intentionally implying it, and I certainly don’t think you mean it!
Saying that the reason for something to change is because society told you to is basically saying that the only reason you made the change was to shut society up about it. It’s exactly like when a child comes over to you and says, “My mum says I have to apologise”. Are they really apologising? Are they really sorry?
If you make female marines a thing because it makes sense, and add to the lore to make them make sense in-universe, the ulterior motives of representation will still work out, but the change will already be running with the pack, as it were, not standing around wondering where it belongs in the running order as the rest of the game whips by.
I guess I just don’t understand the idea of making this change, whilst trying to make it seem unassuming and perfectly normal, but wanting to do so in a different way to every other change that has every happened?

I think the problem is that the whole "Mum says I have to apologise" would and could also apply to the lore change too. What's to stop someone from seeing the lore change as just another "political" move?
If someone's going to be suspicious about "society" and "politics" interfering with their game, I think that they'd think the same about any inclusion of women whatsoever, no matter how well you explain the lore.

Again, it's not different to every other change that's happened - GW have done these sorts of things all the time. In fact, they especially did it with Imperial Knights about gender. When they first re-released Knights, they only ever used masculine pronouns, and had no women represented. I may also be misremembering, but I vaguely remember them saying that there just *weren't* women Knight pilots at all. And then, without any kind of retroactive lore change, we got some women Knights represented. Knights started having masculine and feminine pronouns, and even the Knight pilot in Dawn of War III was a woman. There wasn't any kind of "oh, the Knight houses suddenly started recruiting women because Celisarius Bawl said so!", it was just "yeah, they have women now".

Sgt_Smudge wrote:The thing is, that's down to the people on how they respond. If they're going to be toxic over a lore change, what else would they be toxic over?

But you have been suggesting that we don’t even change the lore, that we just plonk female marines in and don’t offer any explanation.
These people aren’t being toxic over a lore change, they’re being toxic over a political change.

Without any explanation, why is including women a "political" change? If they call it political, that's because they chose to call it political, and would likely have called any change "political".

I’d rather see people joking about Cawl dun it than joking about real issues like representation.

The thing is, they can totally still make those "Cawl dun it" jokes even without a lore reasons - if they want to. And likewise, the people who would "joke" about representation would likely continue to do so, even with that lore reason.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Personally, I'd want to see a third response:
"Oh, yeah. That's pretty cool."

No need for lore, and no need to ever say "oh, it was just to include more women". Let people read whatever they want to into it, justify it how they like, because they'll do that anyway. If people want to ascribe a political motive to it, they'll do so with or without the lore. Ultimately, just let it be.

But then you have to consider that, without a viable alternative, everyone who hears that it was political will believe it to be so.

Yes, absolutely. And likewise, even with a good lore justification, anyone who wants to hear it was political will believe it to be so as well.

You don’t offer them any counter arguments. If someone toxic says “they only added female marines to get women into the hobby”, what counter argument will the good guys have to shut them up and make them feel like their views are not valid? That’s the goal isn’t it – shut up the people who are against it? So what will the good guys say?
“Actually, no, they just did it for… no reason, I guess?”
Or
“Actually, Cawl did >blah blah< and then they attacked >bleh bleh< and now the imperium is getting stronger but has attracted more attention from chaos so there will be more fighting and >lore lore lore<
Which sounds like a stronger argument that it wasn’t done for politics?

Whichever reason people want to give for it. Let people choose for themselves what reason they think GW did it for, because that's what they were going to do anyway.

I mean, look at Primaris. GW gave a reason why Primaris are a thing, but many other people are pretty convinced that it was done for business reasons, to rebrand, to remarket, to get people to "buy all their models all over again" - whatever reason people choose to come up with.
Look at Riptides, Stormsurges and Supremacy Suits. GW gave a reason why Tau scientists were making them and why it diverged from the typical Tau system of "aircraft being used as Titan hunters", but many other people just see it as "GW wanted to sell us big shiny walkers and mech-suits".

No matter what GW choose to say or do, people will make up their own reasons behind it, be it "oh, I guess something happened in the lore", or "I guess they were always around" or "GW are after my money!" or "GW are all political and messing up my hobby".

I just don't want to lie about my intentions, I guess.

Most of the rest of this thread now seems to be people suggesting that making the change won't change anything, which is another way of saying that not making the change won't change anything, which combine t osay "I don't care", so they aren't opposed or for the change.

It's more a case of the change won't stop toxic thoughts. I'd be naive to think that I could change a mind of genuine hatred (and if someone would get actually toxic over the lore getting changed, then that's pretty genuine hatred buried there), but it's about disempowering those opinions and showing them for the bigotry that it is, at it's core.

We can't change everyone, but we can disempower and delegitimise them.

I can agree to some extent that adding female marines to the game (lore + models) will not change much, but it could be the falling stones which start an avalanche, as it were. If female marines become popular, GW will make female options for all the other races it makes sense for, and then it will become an inclusive game naturally, which is the correct way to do it, rather than telling the players "It's an inclusive game now, deal with it".

Again, you seem to think that I would be wanting GW to put up this big sign saying "we're inclusive, deal with it". I don't want that. I just want the lore to change, no mess, no fuss, just change it without fanfare, and as you say - let the stones fall.

It will need time to gain momentum, but once people start seeing cool female marine conversions and dioramas, they will start accepting that they are a cool addition, and then it will start to take off properly.

That's exactly what I want as well. I don't see why it needs a "lore" justification to do that.

Vatsetis wrote:

But it is quite clear that over the last three decades the Space Marines have been build in lore as a military brotherhood base arround medieval warrior monks (yes they are outliers like the space Wolves being "space vikings" but the religious inspiration of the the default SM is still quite obvious... just look at the indomitus box miniatures full of "crusader" inspiration). As time pass by it is more difficult to justify that "SM women were always in the background" because for instance the 30K novels are full os male space marines with their individual histories... the arrrival of primaris marines could have allowed to introduce female marines amongst other changes to the loyalist marines but this was a lost opportunity in this regard.

Monks are religious, it's their biggest thing. SM are specifically noted as being not into the Imperial Creed, and yes they have Chaplains but this rank is multi-faceted. Chaplains are responsible for the education of Aspirants, the protection of Chapter relics, the spiritual (this doesn't mean religious) wellbeing of the Chapter, and as judges when Chapter law is broken.
Monks specifically choose to become a member of an order (in most cases), this is not something that can be applied to SM as it is not a choice to become a SM.
Monks are also not male-only groups so this justification for male-only SM shouldn't be applied.
SM are often based out of a Fortress-Monastery but I've pointed out that simply living in a Monastery doesn't make you a Monk.
Monks live an ascetic lifestyle something else that cannot be applied to all SM.

Of course, all the 40K setting is fictional and all the lore can be rebooted or change in a arbitrary manner. But this is a background forum and probably the background tradition should be taken into account.

Actually it is quite clear that in GW design philosophy for the 40K Imperium "nonmixed" military organizations are quite common... since we have four of them: Space Marines, Battle Sisters, Sisters of Silences and Custodes.

Some people argue that since the Imperium is fictional it can only be opressive in fictional ways (IE: against Chaos corruption) while being completelly inclusive towards the actual variety of modern day human diversity.
But it is very clear that the Imperium of Man reproduces (in a satirical way) many of the real life opressions... it is a dogmatic theocracy, most of its inhabitants suffer under a political authoritarian regime that generates unberable social conditions and inequalities... its clearly exclusionary not only against extreme mutants but also against so called adhumans that are obviously viable human variants (IE Ogryns are tolerated as heavy duty workers just like European colonisers tolerated African slaves in the Americas). So it makes perfect sense in universe for the IOM to have some elements of sexism (like non mixed military organisations) even doe sexism is not a milestone of their identity (since there are women in the inquisition and other high ranking positions).

The Inquisition
The Astra Militarum and Tempestus Scions
The Adeptus Mechanicus
The Imperial Navy
The Knight Houses
The Officio Assassinorum
The Adeptus Astra Telepathica
Rogue Traders
The Collegia Titanica
The Adeptus Arbites

Im surprise that no one (altough I have might missed something) have argued on the reason that might justify in universe SM to be an only male organization... just like in historical societies male teenagers are demographically disposable and can be used for war, while female teenagers are a valuable asset that needs to be protected to guarantee the next generation... altough few in numbers (then again GW numbers in 40K are very inconsistent or illogical most of the time) only about 1/20 candidates became proper space marines, so it makes sort of sense to use male rather than females in the process (the IOM dosent seem to follow the cultural trends of an early XXI century post industrial society, but is rather a "natalist" Empire engaged in a never ending total war).

Regarding the solution to the issue... perhaps an official recognition of female SM could attract more women to the hobby or reduce harrasment, and both will be good... but if you are really going to go that way probably a "low profile" reboot wont be enough (potential women gamers wont notice and the hardcore sexist players will probably continue with their bigotry).

Regarding actual models, just introducing a few vaguely femenine heads in future kits will be clearly insuficient (just like with the Astra Militarum)... that sort of effort is basically "window dressing". If you really want the IOM in 40K to really embrace the gender inclusiveness early XXI century post industrial societies then the proper way would be to make a major reboot of the setting and fused together the SM and SOB as a mixed gender "super soldiers in power armor" military organisation.

Because if we are honest SM are as sexualized (in lore and in miniature design) as Sisters of Battle (luckily SOB are now less hipersexualized and a more flesh out faction than in their inception) and a simple head swap wont solve the issue).

Deadnight wrote:

Hmm, i still can't quite agree that 'warrior monk' is no longer a core design element nor that this, and the touted 'blank canvas' identity are mutually exclusive. It might not be the only element, but I think it's a poor argument to dismiss it out of hand. It has not been set aside. 9th Ed rulebook p28 describes them as 'organised info chapters, each of which id a self-contained and largely self sufficient army with its own monastic culture, heraldry, traditions and tactics'.it also references their fortress monasteries. You don't get more up to date than this. This isn't old lore that is no longer relevant.

in fairness, the meaning of 'ascetic' is severe self discipline and refraining from indulgence? If anything is a defining characteristic of marines, its that.

Marines might not follow the imperial cult but thry have their rituals, beliefs and superstitions. The old daily rituals had multiple periods of prayer per day, and in any case, most marines view their, um, ammunition expenditure aa their prayers. This has not been superceded. In bill.kings Space wolf books, (and in fairness, I have issues with some of the elements in these!), Ragnar spent a hell of a lot of time praying to thr Emperor**In any case, I'd argue the exact duplication of the religiosity of Monks in real life isn't necessarily required for fictional space marines for them to fit into the visual queues.

** I also like to think curses of 'throne damned xenos, exclamations of 'god-emperor!', 'holy throne!' Etc count as 'prayers', if you squint gard enough, like our own frequent exclamations of 'oh my god!' Or 'Jesus christ!'.

I'd argue the notion people don't choose to become space marines is a very nitpicky and overly flawed in its presentation - in plenty recruiting worlds, people do aspire to join the marines/sky gods. There are typicslly a series of trials etc to weed out the weaker individuals before selection can begin properly. In some worlds, the whole culture has been geared towards this - like on Fenris. Aspirants may not be successful in joining the ranks (let's not say 'brotherhood' with respect to this topic) but it's fair to say not everyone who wants to become a monk can stick it out either. While chapters are described in the lore as outright kidnapping recruits, they seem to be the exception rather than the rule (charcharadons and their red tithes for example).

Also, in fairness, plenty orders of Monks in the real.world are gender segregated. Especially historically. Women join a nunnery, guys join a monastery. The 'common trope' is a bunch of people living apart from the rest of society, living frugal and ascetic lives and dedicating their life/sacrifice to God/other diety . Overall this monk design element can still support both all male 'traditional' marine design ethos, and the new design ethos you are proposing.

I personally don't think basing a design element on borrowed aspects of monastic life and their associated commonly understood imagery is bad, or is something that needs to be removed, devalued or cut out because you want to add females to marines and the Two are imcompatible. Using easily identifiable cultural references is sop for gw. Just because space marines might not adhere absolutely and exactly to every aspect of monastic culture in real life does not mean there is no link with the two.

Tl;dr - warrior monk is still a strong identifying image of the idea of a space marine chspter. And 'warrior monk' and 'astartes' are not something that is incompatible with the topic of the thread.