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.

The opinion isn't objectively exclusionary but the reasons behind the opinion are what matters. Let's look at some of the reasons we've seen in this thread:
1 - "I just don't want them." This isn't a valid reason. Anyone who says "just cos" is hiding their reasons and if you can't defend your opinion with actual discussion then your opinion doesn't matter.
2 - "It would ruin the setting". How? Justify how adding female SM would ruin the setting. So far the reasons have been "but the lore" or "it would ruin the grimdark". These are unsatisfactory as one puts fiction above the feelings and experiences of real people, and the other is subjective and can easily be argued against with "how is adding an option for women to be in the brainwashed fascist super-soldier army less grimdark? A disregard for any human life without prejudice is as dark as you can get".
3 - "I don't want politics in my hobby". This person views the existence of women and their representation in media to be political. They cannot be reasoned with.
4 - "I think we should actively exclude women because this is a boy's hobby". This person should be hit with a rulebook and thrown out the door.
5 - "Women are biologically less likely to want to Warhammer anyway". This person is talking utter nonsense.
6 - "Pro female-SM people want it for sexual reasons". Get out.
7 - "The design time would write it badly". Mk. Welcome to Warhammer 40k please take a number.

I don't think the only way women can interact with the hobby is through female SM but shoehorning them into religious zealots, a faction comprised mostly of models from the dark ages, or sexual deviants as factions that have represented female models isn't fair when men have representation in every other faction in the game as well as those factions.

It's not assuming the worst when experience shows time and time again that the worst is what to expect.

^Gert you are forgetting a few:

6. People who want female SM are sexual deviants.

7. It would be done poorly by a notoriously bad writing staff.(Honestly the argument that for me holds the most sway)

 RegularGuy wrote:
Scotsman, I notice you keep tring to personalize the discussion as "You, You, You".
It doesn't bother my either way if GW decides to make the update. I'm trying to provide a perspective of what I suspect gives rise and rationale to why people take issue, a path to understanding and looking for ways to reach out and bring people along rather than simply dismiss and deride.

Voss, you have taken it completely wrongly. You added an assertion of claims of bigotry and misogyny, I make no such claim. Perhaps re-read without bringing so much assumption of ill will or negativity on my part? Why do you suggest that people who might be a bit predesposed to being uncofmortable to change are neccessarily bigoted or msogynists? The very point is to stop asserting and assuming these negative labels when it comes to every person who has a doubt or may have some discomfort with changes and reach out to them rather than attack them. Realize they may be pre-disposed to reaction and look for ways to help them.

I've always been of the opinion that misogyny is a verb rather than a noun. I care about outcomes - if someone expresses misogyny as a response to being uncomfortable to change or expresses the same thing because they just HATE every woman they ever see, to me that's identical and I really don't actually believe the second person honestly exists in any kind of quantity that it matters. People do gakky things for usually simple, dumb reasons.

I talk about 'you' because I was under the impression I was having a conversation with an individual, rather than a gestalt entity observing and commenting on the probable mental state of hypothetical people acting out. My apologies, I'll talk about my own opinions and refer only to the hypothetical possible group of potentially concerned people.

 RegularGuy wrote:

Voss, you have taken it completely wrongly. You added an assertion of claims of bigotry and misogyny, I make no such claim. Perhaps re-read without bringing so much assumption of ill will or negativity on my part? Why do you suggest that people who might be a bit predesposed to being uncofmortable to change are neccessarily bigoted or msogynists? The very point is to stop asserting and assuming these negative labels when it comes to every person who has a doubt or may have some discomfort with changes and reach out to them rather than attack them. Realize they may be pre-disposed to reaction and look for ways to help them.

Because this is a discussion about bigotry and misogyny, that's been established for page after page of posts, no matter when you've joined the discussion. They're unapologetically negative things, so trying to pass them off as the fault of another mistreated group is a crappy thing to do.

There isn't any point in trying to dress it up and hide it, whether or not you want to 'make such a claim.' We aren't talking about people 'being uncomfortable.' We're talking about people who are already _attackers_, not people who need 'help.'

And doubling down is definitely not apologizing and trying again. When you're coming across to people as offensive, maybe take a step back and reconsider your approach?

 RegularGuy wrote:
Scotsman, I notice you keep tring to personalize the discussion as "You, You, You".
It doesn't bother my either way if GW decides to make the update. I'm trying to provide a perspective of what I suspect gives rise and rationale to why people take issue, a path to understanding and looking for ways to reach out and bring people along rather than simply dismiss and deride.

Voss, you have taken it completely wrongly. You added an assertion of claims of bigotry and misogyny, I make no such claim. Perhaps re-read without bringing so much assumption of ill will or negativity on my part? Why do you suggest that people who might be a bit predesposed to being uncofmortable to change are neccessarily bigoted or msogynists? The very point is to stop asserting and assuming these negative labels when it comes to every person who has a doubt or may have some discomfort with changes and reach out to them rather than attack them. Realize they may be pre-disposed to reaction and look for ways to help them.

And Gert,
If someone says they don't think gw adopting female marines is neccessary, or that they are not a fan, that really isn't exclusionary, it's an opinion. Again, do you really assert that every person who may not be a fan of the idea is a gate keeping exclusionist? Or that the ONLY way that women can like and engage with 40k is for GW to adopt female space marines?

There seems to be a habit of always asuming and asserting the worst or the extreme, and I don't think its helpful or healthy for progress in the community

I think you need to review the basic definition of Gaslighting. Because you keep pulling this, "I'm not making accusations, I am just stating an opinion" as if that is somehow worth anything. Then you start accusing others of being hostile, when you espouse things like people who were bullied display a deviancy.

How about instead of accusing indifividuals of being unwilling to hear ideas, you don't flood the thread with gak ideas?

Well gentlemen, you certainly have your littanies of faith. As was my first impression, this isn't about building progressive consensus in the community through sharing and understanding, it is more representative of a struggle session where the only thing that matters is foregone conclusions, predefined roles and identities. All who are not in lock step with the dogma are all manor of evil, and any thoughts or experiences outside the dogmas are dogma are invalid by definition.

Female space marines I don't view as any real problem in the big picture. It is this exclusionary and toxic approach to demonize or marginalize any persons who don't show they are faithfully in line with the assertions above I object to and have objected to all along. And it is on that basis I find sympathy for people subjected to it.

 RegularGuy wrote:
Well gentlemen, you certainly have your littanies of faith. As was my first impression, this isn't about building progressive consensus in the community through sharing and understanding, it is more representative of a struggle session where the only thing that matters is foregone conclusions, predefined roles and identities. All who are not in lock step with the dogma are all manor of evil, and any thoughts or experiences outside the dogmas are dogma are invalid by definition.

Sorry you feel that way. If that were true I'd be exalting in this intellectual surrender rather than lamenting it; but clearly, although you've stated your position rather more articulately than a lot of people, you've made up your mind just as firmly as the tyrannical forces you wish to imagine.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 RegularGuy wrote:
Well gentlemen, you certainly have your littanies of faith. As was my first impression, this isn't about building progressive consensus in the community through sharing and understanding, it is more representative of a struggle session where the only thing that matters is foregone conclusions, predefined roles and identities. All who are not in lock step with the dogma are all manor of evil, and any thoughts or experiences outside the dogmas are dogma are invalid by definition.

Sorry you feel that way. If that were true I'd be exalting in this intellectual surrender rather than lamenting it; but clearly, although you've stated your position rather more articulately than a lot of people, you've made up your mind just as firmly as the tyrannical forces you wish to imagine.

Perhaps. I was enjoying a lot of the discussion that didn't involve the misrepresentation and demonization. I think there's some great folks in this thread who've been instrumental in bringing out great points on the subject of Female Space Marines. I think there really is a way to help address the reluctance that some people feel on the topic, but I do believe that progress is inhibited by the stridency exhibited by some posters. I understand their passion, but I'm of the opinion there's a bit of a Nietzschean beast that emerges with it. And I do admit I fail to see the profit of engaging with that aspect. And it's dissapointing when it derails and submerges something interesting coming along.

Andykp wrote:
I was enjoying catching up on this thread after a night shift, Vatsetis brought a nice measured style to the debate, then Hecaton turned up like a drunk uncle at a wedding and it went down hill again. Thank you Vatsetis for your contribution.

Again, no coherent criticism, just insults and attempted shaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

grahamdbailey wrote:
Reading through this thread has been valuable (ands has added some real fethwits to my block list). It does seem that the consensus feels that female marines would be of great benefit to 40K, and would support GW if they were to make it so.

It's not really a consensus at all. Most people who find the idea boring or otherwise unworkable aren't in this thread, you've just got a few people in an echo chamber about it. I think the game has a lot to lose by changing that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cybtroll wrote:
I (for one) advocate for female space marine because make sense from a fictional world perspective (ref: any linguistic theory about counterfactual, that provide a modelling for fictional worlds)

This smells like bs. What the heck do you mean?

 Cybtroll wrote:
from a scientific point of view (ref: the discussions and issue of cross-gender athletes)

Nah. There's plenty of reasons why it *could* not work on female humans.

 Cybtroll wrote:
it's a good modelling opportunity (ref: the modelling project shared in the thread), can improve the lore (ref: my mention of the Emperor as sexist is in line with the bad light in which the Imperium should be, kua all the conflict between old and new marine) and have a byproduct of making sexist behavior less common (thing that I think is pretty self evident).

"Improve the lore" is entirely subjective, and from my perspective, the Imperium being senselessly evil and inefficient is *the point*, it's a dystopia. And the modeling opportunity was already there if you wanted to do it.

 Cybtroll wrote:
Argument against: the Imperium is a bad place and not being sexist is a detriment the the background; adding female will betray the original inspiration (just so you know: "warrior monks" do not exist in Western history - the Templars were not monks, so the inspiration is from East cultur a where men/female distinction do no apply) and that the change is good but done for bad reason (this I don't think deserve an answer to be honest) and, the one that I think has more weight, if the change is based on Primaris (as we almost all agree would be the less contested change) Chaos SM are excluded.

The Templars were very much monks for parts of their history. They swore the oaths of poverty, chastity, and obedience.

 Cybtroll wrote:
So, I'm sorry RegularGuy, but your summary of the people opposed to your idea is superficial (in the best case scenario) or straight false and misleading.

It's more accurate than yours, which has botched both history and biology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

macluvin wrote:
I would argue that female space marines would be our no means no for people that use the lore to legitimize their harassment and abuse.

And I think that's a ridiculous idea, and you know that's a ridiculous idea, but you're trying to pull a "think of all the women being harassed!" kind of argument, to get what *you* (not the women being harassed) want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RegularGuy wrote:
I'm of the opinion there's a bit of a Nietzschean beast that emerges with it.

It's more Freudian than Nietzschean lol

 RegularGuy wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 RegularGuy wrote:
Well gentlemen, you certainly have your littanies of faith. As was my first impression, this isn't about building progressive consensus in the community through sharing and understanding, it is more representative of a struggle session where the only thing that matters is foregone conclusions, predefined roles and identities. All who are not in lock step with the dogma are all manor of evil, and any thoughts or experiences outside the dogmas are dogma are invalid by definition.

Sorry you feel that way. If that were true I'd be exalting in this intellectual surrender rather than lamenting it; but clearly, although you've stated your position rather more articulately than a lot of people, you've made up your mind just as firmly as the tyrannical forces you wish to imagine.

Perhaps. I was enjoying a lot of the discussion that didn't involve the misrepresentation and demonization. I think there's some great folks in this thread who've been instrumental in bringing out great points on the subject of Female Space Marines. I think there really is a way to help address the reluctance that some people feel on the topic, but I do believe that progress is inhibited by the stridency exhibited by some posters. I understand their passion, but I'm of the opinion there's a bit of a Nietzschean beast that emerges with it. And I do admit I fail to see the profit of engaging with that aspect. And it's dissapointing when it derails and submerges something interesting coming along.

You are coming at this from a principled standpoint and I respect that, they are not, that was your mistake believing this was not a political cause to them, this is why I stated its about power over the platform for them not inclusion, diversity etc. I was proven completely and unequivocally correct in my original assessment.

for what its worth you argument did convince me a little.

I have to say (once again) that people are getting the political and fictional justifications and objections muddled, and this has led to a degree of implication that "if you're against the change, you're sexist".

It was (rightly) pointed out that some people are not well suited to accepting change due to neurodivergence. To them change is bad, regardless of whether it has morals or the greater good behind it - if it's not the same as it was yesterday, it's scary and they don't like it. This doesn't make them a sexist - it just happens that the change we're discussing involves gender representation.

@Gert:

Gert wrote:3 - "I don't want politics in my hobby". This person views the existence of women and their representation in media to be political. They cannot be reasoned with.

You've repeatedly asserted this and I feel that you are skirting around the truth of it.

Including women and their representation in the game is not a political thing - there are factions which have it in the lore, and they need the models to back that up. Adding those models is not political, and nobody will say "they said there were female guard, and now they've added female guard models, OMG it's politics interfering with the game".

But Space Marines are, at present, all male. It will require a change to add female representation. And if the only reason for that change is "to add female representation", then that is Political (or "Societal", to be more accurate). It's something outside of the game interfering with what one of the factions are, in order to impose their standards onto the game.

So no, having women represented in the game is not Societal. Changing one of the factions just so that women can be represented in it absolutely is.



I really don't like how almost everything has been twisted, by implication or outright assertation, to "If you don't like the change, you're sexist and should be ignored". This level of disregard for opposition is actually a very interesting analogy for the very behaviour we are trying to repair. Anyone who reads this, and has a view on why space marines shouldn't be changed, may well be dissuaded from offering their opinions because they don't want to be confronted on it and called a sexist.

Just like how a woman who walks past a GW might not want to go in for fear of being judged because of her gender, and not because of her interest in the hobby.

 RegularGuy wrote:
Perhaps. I was enjoying a lot of the discussion that didn't involve the misrepresentation and demonization. I think there's some great folks in this thread who've been instrumental in bringing out great points on the subject of Female Space Marines. I think there really is a way to help address the reluctance that some people feel on the topic, but I do believe that progress is inhibited by the stridency exhibited by some posters. I understand their passion, but I'm of the opinion there's a bit of a Nietzschean beast that emerges with it. And I do admit I fail to see the profit of engaging with that aspect. And it's dissapointing when it derails and submerges something interesting coming along.

I actually agree that this Reluctance is important to address, because I find this reluctance baffling on the face of the argument alone, and yet, clearly, that reluctance can't simply be wished away with mere facts or rhetoric. People imagining oppression in the face of sensible statements - over topics far more dangerous and that should have been far less controversial even than the gender of plastic space soldiers - have done a lot of damage recently; hundreds of thousands of highly preventable deaths in my country alone, for example, because basic gak like 'get masks, get vaccinated, stay 6 feet away if you can' got declared 'political' and suddenly there had to be opposition to what should have been straightforward and uncontroversial, even among some otherwise intelligent individuals.

While nowhere near the same scope as The Pandemic, (And I'm not bolding that for you, but just so it'll be slightly harder for other parties to take this out of context) this whole Women as Marines thing should have been a similarly total no brainer. It should have ended on page one with "Yes." It should have ended years before this thread started with GW stepping up to the plate, as the AoS Stormcast prove that monogendering an intended flagship army is not a mistake they would repeat today. And yet this discussion has gone 64 pages of back and forth with wildly varying levels of intellectual discourse, from the reasonably articulate to the utterly asinine. And there have been a lot of studies and analysis on why this sort of thing happens by people who understand the topic far better than myself, and no easy way to answer it.

I understand that a lot of that is people on opposite sides of the political spectrum growing increasingly frustrated with their opposition; with the after-effects of trolling mixing with Poe's Law having untold echoes, polarizing and radicalizing people; I still see those effects on Dakka, where people accuse each other of 'disingenuousness' with premature swiftness over topics far more trivial than this one, with such dismissals of opposing opinions being commonplace. And it's not something there's an easy answer to - if clever or thoughtful answers were all that we needed to change the minds of the most strident opposition, Scotsman would have ended this thread personally. If patient explanation is all that was needed, Smudge would have eventually simply gone unchallenged. He might still. And I don't have the wit of the former nor the patience of the latter.

All I can do is offer a reassurance that I consider it extremely unlikely that anyone in a given social group who considers a move to women as Space Marines distasteful for reasons that are not themselves repugnant or toxic (There aren't a ton of these, but I'll give that "Not trusting GW not to somehow feth it up" is probably the best one) are unlikely to be ostracized from gaming groups that knew them for years.

Well, to be honest, people are judged sexist not because they don't want female space marine, but because they advocate against it with sexist arguments.
There are a lot of poster here that are against the change and are not considered sexist by none. And it's funny that those who seems convinced of being particularly eloquent don't realize that if what you're saying is sexist, you may not be it personally, but that doesn't change what you've said.
Takes Hecaton and its cheap shots at depicting other as "Freudian". Maybe there is really a sexual obsession here that is reflected on the othera, maybe there is not: but that's what's written anyway.

So, to try to negate the need for change "because it's politically motivated", and you immediately lose any ground to criticize the same in other people's posts because put yourself in exactly the same position that you denounce as wrong.
There's a lot we can manage: but internal inconsistency brokes everything, always.


The current status of the lore itself (which is unteinable today as much as saying that genetic depends on astrology) plus the opportunities to progress and enrich the lore including female space marine are more than enough to warrant the change by themselves.
And that's enough for me: being more inclusive is icing on the cake.

Yes, in a perfect world no game would be exclusionary since the beginning, and this chang will be universally agreed upon
But I'll settle for a right decision taken from minor and fictional considerations rather than stagnation.
Motivation are personal, so they do not exist really outside everyone's head. Fact does.

macluvin wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:

Andykp wrote:



I would say you’ve demonstrated a remarkable misunderstanding of the spectrum of psychology involved in rape; I recommend you consult some sort of criminal psychology reference. The phrase no means no evolved as a response to the fact that a lot of rapists have nonconsensual sex because they feel entitled to it; this is also why rape trends with the wealthy and famous. Logically speaking, someone like Kobe Bryant looks at a women declining his sexual advances like “she doesn’t mean that. I’m rich and famous, I’m the best she can hope for.” Or entitlement from other rape culture like “she was asking for it, look at what she was wearing.” These people were logically incapable of understanding what they were doing was wrong because they believed themselves superior, or that the other person could not possibly want to turn them down.No means no was a phrase designed to neuter that justification and delegitimize rape culture. There are other reasons rape may happen but it does all go back to control and projection of power.

I would argue that female space marines would be our no means no for people that use the lore to legitimize their harassment and abuse.

You are completelly misunderstanding my POV and reference to rape... I 100% support your description on rape culture and the meaning of "no means no". But "no means no" is precisely something usefull because is used by empowered women against rape culture precisely because rape being a crime is not by itself something that prevents raping and rape culture.

I find very distresfull that some poster put me in a camp where Im not.

Im simply arguing that IMHO I dont think that a simple "official recognition" by GW of the fact that female SM are "in the lore" would in fact refrain the misoginist members of tehe community to attack those playing/showing FSM... because I think that needs a deeper commitment by the company and the community.

I really hope I was wrong and the only thing needed to transform a toxic "boys only club" into an inclusive space was a head sprue with female heads for the marines.

From the very brief check it seems like:
Hecaton is calling the pro-female SM side sexually obsessed while using the word "Freudian". Fun fact, the first thing you lean in Psychology is that Freud was doing hard drugs for most of his life and all of his theories are laughed at and disproven. Saying that I'm pro-female SM because of an Oedipal complex is pathetic.
Seems like RegularGuy is back to calling the pro-female SM side religious zealouts again because they can't exist outside of 40k metaphors. Fun.
Presumably Formosa said something about this all being cringe?

For all of this bluster about the pro female-SM side throwing insults and arguing in bad faith, it really does seem that the anti female-SM side does it a lot more.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:

Potential rapist dont refrain from rapping just because rapping is illegal... They refrain because those laws are effectivelly enforced, because women are empowered and dont toletare any tipe of sexual abuse and because society as a whole dosent toletare such practices. (Some can be said of most crimes).

I believe you appear to have just described how....any law works, my friend. Literally all laws. But let me ask this.

If an activity, whether legal or illegal, is not present within the culture of a society, will you see it exist? Let's take the example of rap music.

Let us say that rap is not known in North Korea. There is no law that specifically forbids rapping, but potential rap artists (or 'rappists') would never know about rap, because no rap music is played and no rap videos are shown on state-controlled television.

And now let's take the united states, generally considered the cultural center of rap, and consider a scenario where a new government makes rapping illegal and punishable by a fine.

Undoubtedly, there would still be far more rappists in the USA than there would be in North Korea regardless of its legality or illegality.

Now let's talk about Games Workshop. How many Sisters of Battle players are there now, as opposed to five years ago? Looking at tournament numbers from early in 8th edition versus now, it seems the number of sisters of battle players have increased massively. But why is this? Games Workshop sold sisters of battle miniatures and produced rules for them prior to their recent releases, and surely a potential SoB player would play SoB regardless of how easy or difficult the company producing the game made it for them. And if the lack of plastic was an issue, wouldn't that potential SoBist simply take female stormcast models and kitbash their arms with space marine arms holding boltguns to create them?

Yes, there are more SoB players precisely because GW has make a sizeable effort to reinforce that faction (a complete new range of figures and rules and lore to support them, and much more marketing space).

If you want FSM to be something significant for the community thats precisely the tipe of effort you need. A simple head sprue and low profile lore change MIGHT have very little impact.

That dosent mean is something negative.

You underestimate the power of a headswap. A simple and effective way to show character on a model.
Adding the option might not change much right now but in 5 years how many people will have started 40k with SM? How many are going to use the female heads to give their units variety or even to make characters based on themselves? Nobody is pretending that female-SM are going to bring world peace but if even one person stops getting death threats and harassing messages because they made a female-SM then it's worth it.

 Gert wrote:
^ Seconded.
Also, being bullied doesn't give someone a free pass for them to be exclusionary. In fact, if they should know better than anyone the signs of exclusionary behaviour.

No one "gets a free pass" to be exclusionary. But it is actually quite a common trend that those that are excluded in some way (or fill excluded) do indeed exclude others... for instance if you suffer child abuse there is a higher chance that you will reproduce that sort of conduct when adult. Unfortunatly suffering exclusion or violence dosent make you automatically a better or nicer person.

Yes but there have been numerous instances in this thread where people have said "what about the people who hate women because they were bullied" as a reason for not including female-SM.

 Gert wrote:
You underestimate the power of a headswap. A simple and effective way to show character on a model.
Adding the option might not change much right now but in 5 years how many people will have started 40k with SM? How many are going to use the female heads to give their units variety or even to make characters based on themselves? Nobody is pretending that female-SM are going to bring world peace but if even one person stops getting death threats and harassing messages because they made a female-SM then it's worth it.

I suppose it would.

You use a rethorical question that can only be answered in one manner unless you want to appear as endorsing harrassment and death threads.

I was never arguing on that level, why do I need to apologise and clarify my position over this point time and time again???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:
Yes but there have been numerous instances in this thread where people have said "what about the people who hate women because they were bullied" as a reason for not including female-SM.

Giving context about terrorism is not supporting terrorism.

One thing, which I am somewhat surprised hasn't come up regarding the psychological aspect of change in a GW, is how GW has historically been a refuge for people who were otherwise bullied.

I'll avoid making this unreadable and use plain terms, and I hope that this doesn't cause anyone offence - it regards nobody in particular, but definitely represents a major portion of the people you find in GW stores.

People who have been bullied and ostracised from society for being geeks and nerds have made of GW their fortress, where nobody can come in and bully them for being geeky because everyone in there is geeky too and will back them up - to go into a GW and be non-geeky is to be the outsider.

These walls that the geeks have built around their fortress exist to keep the people that aren't interested in geeky things out. By suggesting a change which involves people from outside being allowed in, these people may automatically assume that the people who are coming in aren't interested in the hobby, they are only coming in because they have been invited, and they will not want them to come in.


This is probably a hefty subconcious reason for resistance against change in anything. They don't want them to not come in because they're girls, they don't want them to come in because they are outsiders.

It's a bad thing, and it's not welcoming for anyone, but it's not sexist for including girls in the "we don't want them coming into our sanctuary" blanket of resistance.


Honestly, I remember the first time I went into a GW, and if it hadn't been for the staff (who aren't the problem) I would have been inclined to have walked out again. Every new person who goes in there is suspiciously eyed from afar as an offworlder, as everyone tries to gauge what they are doing in their sanctuary - do you belong here, offworlder, or are you lost?

Let's be honest, GW stores can be very judgemental places without any influence of gender and what-have-you.

Thats not what that post says. The point was that adding the headswap option increases visibility and over time that visibility will increase even more.
For a numbers example let's say 50 kids start 40k at their local GW and 30 pick up SM. Of those 30, right now, there would probably be no girls. But those 30 boys are now seeing women represented in their SM alongside men which begins to help normalise the idea that men and women should be equal. 2 years later another 50 kids start 40k, 30 more pick SM but by this point there have been female-SM for two years both in marketing and in models. Hopefully at the same time other factions have been getting their due with updates and background accurate mixed forces. Let's say 5 of those 30 kids are girls who having seen things that look like them, have started SM.
You get the idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:

Giving context about terrorism is not supporting terrorism.

Excusing a person's exclusionary behaviour because they themselves were once excluded is supporting the exclusionary behaviour.

If Warhammer is supposed to be a safe place for people who are bullied/excluded, why is there such constant justification when the Warhammer community excludes or bullies someone? I also want to make clear, excluding someone because they are being hateful is a good thing. It's not double standards, it's ensuring the hobby space is still a safe place.

 Gert wrote:
Thats not what that post says. The point was that adding the headswap option increases visibility and over time that visibility will increase even more.
For a numbers example let's say 50 kids start 40k at their local GW and 30 pick up SM. Of those 30, right now, there would probably be no girls. But those 30 boys are now seeing women represented in their SM alongside men which begins to help normalise the idea that men and women should be equal. 2 years later another 50 kids start 40k, 30 more pick SM but by this point there have been female-SM for two years both in marketing and in models. Hopefully at the same time other factions have been getting their due with updates and background accurate mixed forces. Let's say 5 of those 30 kids are girls who having seen things that look like them, have started SM.
You get the idea.

Oh yes, and that's a very eloquent way of putting it!

I think the main point of my last post was about the fact that people can be against a change without being against a societal aspect of it, so shouldn't be called sexist just for being opposed!

Mostly it was just a sudden thought I had come up and thought it worth sharing!

 some bloke wrote:




Oh yes, and that's a very eloquent way of putting it!

I think the main point of my last post was about the fact that people can be against a change without being against a societal aspect of it, so shouldn't be called sexist just for being opposed!

Mostly it was just a sudden thought I had come up and thought it worth sharing!

I think that exactly what "regular guy" was trying to argue before being thrown into the dungeon of justifing exclusionary behaviour.

Not really, RegularGuy has been making poor arguments for a while now and then calling people religious zealots if they disagree.

And just so we're 100% clear on this, you can be against female-SM, I've just yet to see a reason that isn't reliant on "muh lore" or sexism. I also don't believe someone who says "I just don't want it" because if you can't justify your beliefs then I don't want to hear them. You are allowed to have your hobby space free of political discussion but inclusivity and representation shouldn't be part of this. We've discussed how the hobby should be a space for everyone to enjoy so why are people setting up barriers to entry?

Well Gert, I think it was an interesting discussion to start getting into understanding of potential barriers people have to female space maraines and looking at how people can be met where they are instead of demonizing them. For example, many seem to have a firm doubt that lack of female marines by GW represents a very significant barrier.

I don't have any problem with anyone having a disagrement. I do think things are getting out of hand when instead of trying to understand what someone is saying and evolve the discussion simply assert ill will and bad character and make declarations of ill intent, and meaning. Items which people hold in doubt or have argument with are asserted as indisputable truth.

In many ways it does seem to have the pattern of religious zealotry, which is why I draw the parallel.

 Gert wrote:
Not really, RegularGuy has been making poor arguments for a while now and then calling people religious zealots if they disagree.

And just so we're 100% clear on this, you can be against female-SM, I've just yet to see a reason that isn't reliant on "muh lore" or sexism. I also don't believe someone who says "I just don't want it" because if you can't justify your beliefs then I don't want to hear them. You are allowed to have your hobby space free of political discussion but inclusivity and representation shouldn't be part of this. We've discussed how the hobby should be a space for everyone to enjoy so why are people setting up barriers to entry?

There does seem to have been some descent into trivial name-calling in this thread at times (from both sides), and such comparisons can cloud what are otherwise good points. There certainly have been cases of comments suggesting that any disagreement, whatever it is founded on, is sexist because the issue concerns representation, and then that's been thrown back as religious zealotry and so on. I try to focus on reading past this thing - just because someone says something in an untactful manner should not detract from any truth of it!


Regarding the "but muh lore", I say (once again) that 40k is the lore. The models only represent the lore, they don't represent the people playing. and GW capitalise on the fact that people want models representing their lore to make money, and manipulate it however they see fit because, you know, money!

So to change a model, you have to change the lore that the model is representing. The lore has to represent women in order for the models to represent women.

There is no political argument for not including female space marines. Seriously, not one. The only reasons why people would want to not have female marines are:

1: they want the lore to change, or I think it doesn't make sense
2: they're sexist and want it to remain all boys (not acceptable)


Once you accept that the models don't represent the players, they represent the combination of the lore and the players, then you realise that the lore has to change in order to change anything about the models.


Then, it becomes clear why every argument you're seeing is "But muh lore!". The reason is because yes, it is about the lore. Pretty much exclusively. Models are a side effect of the lore, representation is a side effect of the models, IE representation (or lack thereof) is a side effect of the lore.

Case in point: Space marine models do not represent women. This isn't because they, the imperium, or GW are sexist, it's because space marine models represent space marines in the lore, and in the lore they are (currently) all male, for reasons entirely within the lore, because the lore is a self sustaining entity. It doesn't care about what is going on in 21st century real life, it pertains only to what is going on in M41.


So what you are faced with, at that point, is the simple fact that you have to justify within the lore that it is important to represent the values of 21st century gender equality in the 41st millennium when there are important things like space bugs, space elves, space orks, space robots and hell monsters to be dealing with instead.


It is to be expected that people who are capable of detaching the universe of 40k from any modern day issues will see it as an unnecessary thing to include women in space marines for 21st century problems, rather than for M41 problems.

I still say we should change the lore, using fictional issues/breakthroughs from M41 to justify it, and add female marines in. But others may not feel like it's necessary, and belittling their argument as "but muh lore" suggests that it is considered trivial that 40k continue to work the way it always has done, because of the subject matter at hand. Representation is needed, but it is not necessary to disregard what 40k is to achieve it - 40k is more than capable of achieving it without the external influence of politics.

Answering to Gert last post...

Because people are attached to the lore in which they have develop their hobby for a long time?

Because they consider the only male nature of space marines a relevant part of the setting?

Because they doubt that having GW officially endorse FSM will have any significant impact on the inclusiveness of the community and therefore is not worth it?


After all we are only speaking about hypothesis and preferences; since we are not part of GW Staff or have any real leverage towards the company policy making.

I really have no issues with FSM, I wish their inclusion helped the hobby to be less male dominated... but after actively participating in this debate Im much more skeptical about it.

I see a lot of effort in trying to win an internet fight that is unwinnable, a lot of name calling and blaming and a very naive approach toward the solution.

I play Infinity and TWD... models and lore are 10 times more gender inclusive than 40K... I can make my force exclusively of female models in both systems if I want to without compromising gameplay... nevertheless female gamers are very few in both communities.

You cannot reduce a complex topic into a yes or no issue.

40k is more than capable of achieving it without the external influence of politics

This is the bit I disagree with because 40k does not adapt and change naturally, it can only be influenced by external forces such as the drive for inclusivity or the request for greater profits.
Why is GW adding female head options to Cadians now and not 10 years ago? Why did it take so long for SoB to get a revamp when in that same timeframe Knights, GSC, Scions, Admech, and even Assassins got completely new ranges?
GW didn't add the new Cadian parts or revamp SoB because it would look cool, it was done because 40k severely lacks representation and by getting women interested in the hobby GW could make money. That's the cold hard truth, profit is all that matters to the higher-ups/investors and they will push whatever gets them bigger dividends and bonuses.

@Vatsetis

 Gert wrote:

40k is more than capable of achieving it without the external influence of politics

This is the bit I disagree with because 40k does not adapt and change naturally, it can only be influenced by external forces such as the drive for inclusivity or the request for greater profits.
Why is GW adding female head options to Cadians now and not 10 years ago? Why did it take so long for SoB to get a revamp when in that same timeframe Knights, GSC, Scions, Admech, and even Assassins got completely new ranges?
GW didn't add the new Cadian parts or revamp SoB because it would look cool, it was done because 40k severely lacks representation and by getting women interested in the hobby GW could make money. That's the cold hard truth, profit is all that matters to the higher-ups/investors and they will push whatever gets them bigger dividends and bonuses.

I agree. But profits aren't politics. Just look at every corporation who supports LGBTQ+, until it's not in the press any more. Their political values aren't linked to their desire for profits.


Why are they adding them now, and not 10 years ago? Because the arrow of time only points in one direction.

So yes, I 100% agree with you that the game (being the lore and the models which represent it) are absolutely 100% driven by profit. Because GW is a business.

But that doesn't stop them from weaving some pretty good stories to represent with their models. The lore makes sense, barring a few issues, which they even have lore to explain (EG the imperium is detached so some think one thing and others think different things - every time you see two contradictory pieces of lore, it's because an imperial scribe got something wrong!)

The inclusion of female models in the ranges and the push of SoB is probably a 50/50 split of motivations. One half is that the company want money and thus want to make new ranges to sell more models. The other half is that they don't want to be seen as sexist or exclusionary by only having male models.

Now that we've agreed on that one, can anyone with a sisters of battle codex post up some lore which indicates either of these motivations?


Do you see how they manage to divorce the two things using the lore? How they say "alright everyone, we need a new model to sell!" and the brainstorming starts - "what about a new space marine unit?" "brilliant jenkins, truly excellent! Get the writing team working on a reason for the new unit to exist and then we'll get the sculpters to start making the new guns for them to hold! Then we'll worry about what rules we need to make to make them powerful enough to sell like hot cakes, before we nerf them with a compulsory book full of FAQ's!" >polite rounds of applause from the brown-nosers round the table with thin morals and thick wallets<.

The key part there is "get it written so that the models have a reason to exist". And before the deluge of "women exist they shouldn't need a reason" comes in, this is about the game, not real life. As soon as the decision was made "we want to add these to the game", things jump sideways from the real world, with profit expectations, business models and societal expectations, and it goes into the world of fiction, the 40k lore, where they need to find a place for this new thing to sit without it contradicting anything else.

They might just say "all those records saying there were no female marines were from scribes who could hardly tell the difference, and the secrets are so closely guarded most people still think all marines are male, even though they aren't", and that's fine. But the idea that the lore doesn't have to justify it because society justifies it is ludicrous. The lore does not need concern itself with society - that's the business planners jobs in GW. GW =/= the lore, the lore =/= real life.