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.
Gert Ive been reading this thread from minute one.
The fact that you compare GW40K with Marvel comics (perhaps the holders of the biggest IP at the moment and living on the tracks of disney blockbusters) and not with Infinity (another miniture tabletop wargame) shows a lack of proportion in your POV.
I have just made a thread in which I hope everyone will post their preferred method for how to implement this change, if it were to be changed.
There will be an option on the poll for not changing it, as no views should be discounted!
I hope that when I get this poll together, it will help us all to see how people view the merits and approaches of changing the lore - did Cawl do it, has it always been there, do female marines just look almost identical to men, that sort of thing!
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
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.
Correct but these people aren't stupid, they'll have the experience to know what is and isn't going to make them money. If tomorrow the GW board decided that the best way to increase profits was to add female SM and the head of the design team said no because they want to keep SM as all-male, the head of the design team would be replaced.
Why are they adding them now, and not 10 years ago? Because the arrow of time only points in one direction.
Don't be smarmy you know exactly what I mean. The Cadian kit was released in 2003, repackaged in 2008, and got a new sprue added in 2021. It took nearly 20 years for GW to include options for female heads in the basic troop box for an army widely known to be a mixed sex force.
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 lore has 0 influence on why things are added to the model range. The lore justifies additions to the range, not the other way round.
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.
Those aren't separate motivations they're the same motivation, make money. Companies that have narrow target customer bases make less money so making the product appeal to a broader base nets more profit.
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?
We haven't agreed. The entire existence of a revamped SoB range shows they want to make more money by expanding into markets (women) that were previously uninvested in. "Oh, but they didn't justify the range revamp in the lore", of course they didn't they justified it everywhere bloody else.
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.
Yeah, that's not how it works. GW doesn't add units to the game, they add models to the range. The game and background are secondary concerns, which is why people get so mad at additions to the range.
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.
They'll justify the addition of female SM however they want and people will still call it politics. Models come first, everything else is secondary.
@Vatsetis
Spoiler:
Vatsetis wrote: Gert Ive been reading this thread from minute one.
The fact that you compare GW40K with Marvel comics (perhaps the holders of the biggest IP at the moment and living on the tracks of disney blockbusters) and not with Infinity (another miniture tabletop wargame) shows a lack of proportion in your POV.
Infinity is one product.
GW has:
Warhammer 40k, which consists of the 40k game, 40k Kill Team, Blackstone Fortress, The Horus Heresy game, Adeptus Titanicus, Aeronautica Imperialis, and Necromunda.
Warhammer Age of Sigmar, which consists of the AoS game, Warcry, Warhammer Underworlds, Warhammer Quests Silver Tower, Shadows over Hammerhal and Cursed City (sort of).
Warhammer Fantasy, which consists of Blood Bowl and The Old World.
They are also the license holders for Middle Earth with which they make the MESBG.
Their own publishing company, Black Library which publishes books set in all of GW's own IP settings.
A listening department that allows other companies to make video games, comics (including Marvel BTW), and numerous RPGs.
So yes, I do compare GW with a company like Marvel with its multitude of properties compared to Corvus Belli which for the longest time seems only to have had the Infinity product.
some bloke wrote: I have just made a thread in which I hope everyone will post their preferred method for how to implement this change, if it were to be changed.
There will be an option on the poll for not changing it, as no views should be discounted!
I hope that when I get this poll together, it will help us all to see how people view the merits and approaches of changing the lore - did Cawl do it, has it always been there, do female marines just look almost identical to men, that sort of thing!
Wanting female space marines could be for many reasons. But to act like one of them isn't political is just as myopic. Where was the outrage and roar for inclusion 10 years ago?
The main thing that scares me is the absolute detachment from reality that some people seem to have. In life human males are stronger than human females. It is not just muscle mass. Men are built by biology to fight and hunt. There is a reason why sports are divided by sex. There is a reason why armies throughout history have been mostly male. And it is not because of "i hate girls".
Now 40k is a fictional universe, we all know this. So not all the rules of reality apply. But 40k, like most science fiction works when we have basis of comparison in our real world. There are very good reasons in game why space marines are male only. And once more, it isn't about "i hate girls". Well, for some it is I would guess. To paint everyone of that view point as the same as the he-man woman haters squad is just as bad as any bigotry. It only shows how small your perception really is.
But I do have a question that pro female marine fans have never answered on this forum. WHY do you want female space marines? There is a faction of female warriors already in the game. And while GW has historically not been kind to that faction, things are changing. Inclusion for inclusions sake is not a real reason. Is it about forcing your morality on others for a fleeting feeling of power? Is it to signal your morality? is it to take things from others you find to be less than yourself? I seriously cannot think of a decent reason to do this and find at times the above examples to be true. But my observations are biased. So if you would kindly illuminate your reasons so I can adjust my views accordingly.
I would be 100% ok with sisters of battle being just as powerful as the marines in lore. And that is perhaps what people should be pushing for.
On a side note, before I am called a number of names and my intentions are called out to be nefarious, I shall give you a tiny bit of personal history. I have a wife and a mother that I love more than any man. I in no way think that females are worth less than males. Perhaps there are good reasons why people do not want female marines. Just as I assume there are good reasons for people to want them.
Now, you can insult me.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/09 13:39:52
Wanting female space marines could be for many reasons. But to act like one of them isn't political is just as myopic. Where was the outrage and roar for inclusion 10 years ago? The main thing that scares me is the absolute detachment from reality that some people seem to have. In life human males are stronger than human females. It is not just muscle mass. Men are built by biology to fight and hunt. There is a reason why sports are divided by sex. There is a reason why armies throughout history have been mostly male. And it is not because of "i hate girls".
Space Marines aren't human so "biology" doesn't apply and the majority of the Imperium's military organisations are mixed so there goes that argument.
Now 40k is a fictional universe, we all know this. So not all the rules of reality apply. But 40k, like most science fiction works when we have basis of comparison in our real world. There are very good reasons in game why space marines are male only. And once more, it isn't about "i hate girls". Well, for some it is I would guess. To paint everyone of that view point as the same as the he-man woman haters squad is just as bad as any bigotry. It only shows how small your perception really is.
Didn't say all people, just the majority of anti female-SM arguments come from sexist reasons like "women are weaker than men". As for your very good reasons, what would they be exactly? Biology? It's the future and genetic manipulation is common. Tradition? Only one of the segregated armies has any real explanation as to why it is segregated (SoB).
But I do have a question that pro female marine fans have never answered on this forum. WHY do you want female space marines? There is a faction of female warriors already in the game. And while GW has historically not been kind to that faction, things are changing. Inclusion for inclusions sake is not a real reason. Is it about forcing your morality on others for a fleeting feeling of power? Is it to signal your morality? is it to take things from others you find to be less than yourself? I seriously cannot think of a decent reason to do this and find at times the above examples to be true. But my observations are biased.
If you don't think there's been answers to that question, you haven't been reading the thread chief. Here's a few: Adding female SM to the range would hopefully reduce toxic behaviour towards those who already make their SM female. It would look cool. The Imperium isn't a sexist place, so why are SM not allowed to be female? Cawl made the Primaris changes so why can't he also find a way to make female SM?
SoB aren't equal to SM in any way regarding market presence, hell it took nearly 30 years to update the bloody model line. And are you seriously going to stand there and say that women should be happy that the only faction in the game that represents them is characterised by its religious zealotry and being dumped on by the writers for about 30 years? It's not inclusion for inclusions sake, it's inclusion because there is a serious problem of sexism and harassment of women in this hobby. Normalising the presence of women within the hobby by putting them in the flagship faction would hopefully help to reduce this issue. The only people in this hobby that I consider less than myself are the scumbags who send death threats to hobbyists for making female SM.
I would be 100% ok with sisters of battle being just as powerful as the marines in lore. And that is perhaps what people should be pushing for.
SoB aren't and should not be SM. They are fine as they are as a distinct faction.
On a side note, before I am called a number of names and my intentions are called out to be nefarious, I shall give you a tiny bit of personal history. I have a wife and a mother that I love more than any man. I in no way think that females are worth less than males. Perhaps there are good reasons why people do not want female marines. Just as I assume there are good reasons for people to want them.
When someone comes up with a reason that doesn't put a fictional setting above real people, isn't sexist nonsense, and isn't just "I don't want politics", then I'll agree that there are good reasons for not adding female SM.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/09 13:58:08
Table wrote:Wanting female space marines could be for many reasons. But to act like one of them isn't political is just as myopic. Where was the outrage and roar for inclusion 10 years ago?
The main thing that scares me is the absolute detachment from reality that some people seem to have. In life human males are stronger than human females. It is not just muscle mass. Men are built by biology to fight and hunt. There is a reason why sports are divided by sex. There is a reason why armies throughout history have been mostly male. And it is not because of "i hate girls".
This bit has been discussed much earlier in the thread (I won't expect you to read the entire thing, unless you have a spare day!). In fact I brought up the topic and evidence of sexual dimorphism, and was told that I was a sexist by someone who now has me on their block list (or is just stoically ignoring my every post since) for pointing it out.
That said, space marines are far beyond the natural tendencies towards being stronger and heavier. The difference between male or female starter stock in the finished marine might be ±2% of their strength. And besides, the level of made-up-science involved in making marines can easily overcome such things.
Furthermore, that is the difference in adults. Marines are started pre-puberty, IIRC, so the difference between a 10 year old boy and a 10 year old girl is significantly less. If marine-ing replaces puberty, you can expect them to develop into basically the same creature.
Table wrote:But I do have a question that pro female marine fans have never answered on this forum. WHY do you want female space marines? There is a faction of female warriors already in the game. And while GW has historically not been kind to that faction, things are changing. Inclusion for inclusions sake is not a real reason. Is it about forcing your morality on others for a fleeting feeling of power? Is it to signal your morality? is it to take things from others you find to be less than yourself? I seriously cannot think of a decent reason to do this and find at times the above examples to be true. But my observations are biased. So if you would kindly illuminate your reasons so I can adjust my views accordingly.
You have highlighted the way in which we have political vs lore in the entire argument. Every argument for female marines hinges on its effects on the real world and representation, coupled with the fact that there's no good reason why not (such as if it were orks, who have a good reason why they are all the same). Then every argument against it is entirely on the lore side of things, because there is no political reason not to do it, no financial reason not to do it (it'll sell more models), but lots of potential reasons not to do it based on the lore.
The problem there is that, at the moment, all we have that tells us marines are male is some old lore that was neither repeated or overwritten, and the legacy that all the models are male and all the pronouns are male. That's the only ammunition that currently exists for not doing it from a lore point of view.
People are making up lore which would fit, such as it requiring a Y chromosome or a males bone density, or females being seen as less disposable, or only male candidates passing the tests, but these are all made up at this point, and as such have just as strong an anchor in the lore as saying Cawl made female marines, or that marines are actually all female but look male from the process and were misinterpreted by the imperial record keepers as all being male. It's all made up, non-canon lore from people writing it to suit their own arguments, and as such holds as much validity as me saying all marines are actually made from goldfish but the imperium wants people to think that marines are human so hasn't revealed this fact.
As it is, the arguments for are:
Better representation to combat real-world issues
There's nothing holding it back except the thinnest strand of lore
There's so many ways to explain their existence in the lore that it would be easy to do.
The arguments against are:
There's this thinnest strand of lore that holds it back
As for sisters of battle being changed to be space marines with heels, that's a no from me. They shouldn't change a unique faction to be another homogenous blend of power armour, your imagination, and your favourite colour. Sisters of battle have their own thing going on and they should keep doing it, because they don't have to be the same as marines to be as good as them. 100% for sisters, as an army/faction, to be as powerful as marines. 100% not ok with the idea of 1 sister = 1 marine.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
Vatsetis wrote: Gert Ive been reading this thread from minute one.
The fact that you compare GW40K with Marvel comics (perhaps the holders of the biggest IP at the moment and living on the tracks of disney blockbusters) and not with Infinity (another miniture tabletop wargame) shows a lack of proportion in your POV.
Infinity is one product.
GW has:
Warhammer 40k, which consists of the 40k game, 40k Kill Team, Blackstone Fortress, The Horus Heresy game, Adeptus Titanicus, Aeronautica Imperialis, and Necromunda.
Warhammer Age of Sigmar, which consists of the AoS game, Warcry, Warhammer Underworlds, Warhammer Quests Silver Tower, Shadows over Hammerhal and Cursed City (sort of).
Warhammer Fantasy, which consists of Blood Bowl and The Old World.
They are also the license holders for Middle Earth with which they make the MESBG.
Their own publishing company, Black Library which publishes books set in all of GW's own IP settings.
A listening department that allows other companies to make video games, comics (including Marvel BTW), and numerous RPGs.
So yes, I do compare GW with a company like Marvel with its multitude of properties compared to Corvus Belli which for the longest time seems only to have had the Infinity product.
We must have get derail at some point... I thought this thread was about the impact of FSM in the 40K gamming/modelling community (if not, why such a fuss arround the head sprue for FSM?)... as you have shown this is only a relatively small part of GW activity.
40k gamming/modelling is not something mainstream as reading comics... even an important part of those subject to GW influence arent part of this community... its a time and money demanding hobby for a minority.
40K community gamming and modelling is significantly bigger than the infinity one, but both have huge similarities, and even played by the same or similar people in the same places... therefore the comparison is relevant.
If I say, "making a sci fi tabletop community inclusive is harder that including females heads and females charecters in the lore, look at infinity" the answer is not to dismish it saying that GW is a big company that licenses video games and the such... thats moving the goal post in a very arbitrary manner.
Actually to reject the POV of a fellow poster that gives input of a smaller community about the issue being debated (gender representation in tabletop models) is very elitist and, may I say, exclusionary.
Vatsetis wrote: Gert Ive been reading this thread from minute one.
The fact that you compare GW40K with Marvel comics (perhaps the holders of the biggest IP at the moment and living on the tracks of disney blockbusters) and not with Infinity (another miniture tabletop wargame) shows a lack of proportion in your POV.
Infinity is one product.
GW has:
Warhammer 40k, which consists of the 40k game, 40k Kill Team, Blackstone Fortress, The Horus Heresy game, Adeptus Titanicus, Aeronautica Imperialis, and Necromunda.
Warhammer Age of Sigmar, which consists of the AoS game, Warcry, Warhammer Underworlds, Warhammer Quests Silver Tower, Shadows over Hammerhal and Cursed City (sort of).
Warhammer Fantasy, which consists of Blood Bowl and The Old World.
They are also the license holders for Middle Earth with which they make the MESBG.
Their own publishing company, Black Library which publishes books set in all of GW's own IP settings.
A listening department that allows other companies to make video games, comics (including Marvel BTW), and numerous RPGs.
So yes, I do compare GW with a company like Marvel with its multitude of properties compared to Corvus Belli which for the longest time seems only to have had the Infinity product.
We must have get derail at some point... I thought this thread was about the impact of FSM in the 40K gamming/modelling community (if not, why such a fuss arround the head sprue for FSM?)... as you have shown this is only a relatively small part of GW activity.
40k gamming/modelling is not something mainstream as reading comics... even an important part of those subject to GW influence arent part of this community... its a time and money demanding hobby for a minority.
40K community gamming and modelling is significantly bigger than the infinity one, but both have huge similarities, and even played by the same or similar people in the same places... therefore the comparison is relevant.
If I say, "making a sci fi tabletop community inclusive is harder that including females heads and females charecters in the lore, look at infinity" the answer is not to dismish it saying that GW is a big company that licenses video games and the such... thats moving the goal post in a very arbitrary manner.
Actually to reject the POV of a fellow poster that gives input of a smaller community about the issue being debated (gender representation in tabletop models) is very elitist and, may I say, exclusionary.
Whilst I appreciate your point of view on this, GW is vastly more visible in reality (as opposed to by virtual means, like the internet) and as such has to face the fact that they have limited display and advertising space in their windows. Infinity doesn't have its own store, and most places you find it have so much more in their windows than infinity (or even than just wargames). Add to this the fact that GW has pushed space marines so much that every store front needs a space marine army in it so people see space marines, recognize space marines, and associate them with GW that it is almost impossible to find a GW store without a space marine army in the window.
That means that, whilst infinity can plug every model online and people will spend the time looking through them if they are interested, from the safety of their own home, and build up their ideas of whether it's right for them from there, people walking past GW stores will see, every time, an army of buff power-armour wearing dudes being presented as the ambassadors of the hobby. If that doesn't get them through the door, then they are already walking away.
So yes, infinity is representative, but it is also vastly less well known and out-there than GW's. GW can afford stores in prime locations, whereas local hobby stores tend to be down back roads where the buildings are cheaper.
Comparing infinity to GW is like comparing GW to marvel, they're both that much beyond the other.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
some bloke wrote: I have just made a thread in which I hope everyone will post their preferred method for how to implement this change, if it were to be changed.
There will be an option on the poll for not changing it, as no views should be discounted!
I hope that when I get this poll together, it will help us all to see how people view the merits and approaches of changing the lore - did Cawl do it, has it always been there, do female marines just look almost identical to men, that sort of thing!
Wanting female space marines could be for many reasons. But to act like one of them isn't political is just as myopic. Where was the outrage and roar for inclusion 10 years ago?
The main thing that scares me is the absolute detachment from reality that some people seem to have. In life human males are stronger than human females. It is not just muscle mass. Men are built by biology to fight and hunt. There is a reason why sports are divided by sex. There is a reason why armies throughout history have been mostly male. And it is not because of "i hate girls".
Now 40k is a fictional universe, we all know this. So not all the rules of reality apply. But 40k, like most science fiction works when we have basis of comparison in our real world. There are very good reasons in game why space marines are male only. And once more, it isn't about "i hate girls". Well, for some it is I would guess. To paint everyone of that view point as the same as the he-man woman haters squad is just as bad as any bigotry. It only shows how small your perception really is.
But I do have a question that pro female marine fans have never answered on this forum. WHY do you want female space marines? There is a faction of female warriors already in the game. And while GW has historically not been kind to that faction, things are changing. Inclusion for inclusions sake is not a real reason. Is it about forcing your morality on others for a fleeting feeling of power? Is it to signal your morality? is it to take things from others you find to be less than yourself? I seriously cannot think of a decent reason to do this and find at times the above examples to be true. But my observations are biased. So if you would kindly illuminate your reasons so I can adjust my views accordingly.
I would be 100% ok with sisters of battle being just as powerful as the marines in lore. And that is perhaps what people should be pushing for.
On a side note, before I am called a number of names and my intentions are called out to be nefarious, I shall give you a tiny bit of personal history. I have a wife and a mother that I love more than any man. I in no way think that females are worth less than males. Perhaps there are good reasons why people do not want female marines. Just as I assume there are good reasons for people to want them.
Now, you can insult me.
From my POV, historically women have been excluded from the military not because they are not fit for combat duty but rather for a demographic reason... on ancient times young men were expandable and could be "wasted" in battle, young women were a valuable asset for the community that have to be protected to guarantee the next generation of offspring. Actually a lot of tribal/traditional warfare was fighting to kidnap fertile women. This eventually created a need to "protect" women and help the rise of patriarchy. Sorry for the broad historical simplification but I hope my point is understood.
The reason to promote FSM is to create a more inclusive atmosphere in the 40K gamming community, by ussing the flagship faction as a beacon for representation. I have my doubts that this would be as effective as other posters are argueing but It seems to be the central reason.
We must have get derail at some point... I thought this thread was about the impact of FSM in the 40K gamming/modelling community (if not, why such a fuss arround the head sprue for FSM?)... as you have shown this is only a relatively small part of GW activity.
You brought Infinity into the discussion and said that despite having better representation in the model range, there are still few women players. I countered by saying Infinity is a poor comparison to make since it is objectively a much more niche hobby than 40k and that the way that GW operates is more like a comic company like Marvel or DC. You then said:
The fact that you compare GW40K with Marvel comics (perhaps the holders of the biggest IP at the moment and living on the tracks of disney blockbusters) and not with Infinity (another miniture tabletop wargame) shows a lack of proportion in your POV.
So I quantified why I compared GW to Marvel by listing the large amount of property they own and distribute.
Back to the point, 40k lacks representation of women in its models/novels/marketing, and as such a woman or girl is less likely to join the hobby. Adding female options to the flagship faction that is featured in 90% of marketing, 50% of the model line and probably another 50% of the novels would hopefully see an increase in women/girl hobbyists which in turn would hopefully see the community become less insular while also removing the harmful "leering sweaty nerd" stereotype the hobby suffers from.
40k gamming/modelling is not something mainstream as reading comics... even an important part of those subject to GW influence arent part of this community... its a time and money demanding hobby for a minority.
It isn't as mainstream as comics but 40k is more mainstream than Infinity is. Most UK cities will have a Warhammer or Games Workshop store, some even have multiple and on top of that most independent stockists also sell Warhammer. In all of the indy stores I've been in I can't recall seeing Infinity products or marketing in any of them.
40K community gamming and modelling is significantly bigger than the infinity one, but both have huge similarities, and even played by the same or similar people in the same places... therefore the comparison is relevant.
But Infinity still doesn't have the presence in society that 40k does. It doesn't matter if some 40k players also do Infinity because that's not what's being discussed.
If I say, "making a sci fi tabletop community inclusive is harder that including females heads and females charecters in the lore, look at infinity" the answer is not to dismish it saying that GW is a big company that licenses video games and the such... thats moving the goal post in a very arbitrary manner.
What you said was that despite Infinity having better diversity the proportion of women hobbyists is still low. I don't see this as a fair point because the proportion of Infinity hobbyists to 40k hobbyists is likely lower still. You're comparing two very different situations and calling them the same.
A person interested in TTWG is going to find a place that sells Warhammer before they find Infinity and especially kids are going to wander into a Warhammer or GW shop before getting into Infinity.
Actually to reject the POV of a fellow poster that gives input of a smaller community about the issue being debated (gender representation in tabletop models) is very elitist and, may I say, exclusionary.
You made a point and I disagreed with that point and provided a counterargument. Just because you don't like the counterargument doesn't make me elitist or exclusionary.
Comparing infinity to GW is like comparing GW to marvel, they're both that much beyond the other.
My comparison was not on a cuantitative scale but rather in a qualitative one.
Yes whatever GW those will have a much, much bigger public impact than anything related to Infinity /Corvus Belli.
Potentially any move they make towards representation might attract many more women into the hobby.
But thats is an hypothesis regarding a future measure that might or might not happend
Commeting what is actually happening of Scifi tabletop community today regarding gender integration seems sensible for me. Im not arguing "if didnt work for Infinity it wont work for 40K" Im just givin another piece of information for consideration on the debate.
From my POV, historically women have been excluded from the military not because they are not fit for combat duty but rather for a demographic reason... on ancient times young men were expandable and could be "wasted" in battle, young women were a valuable asset for the community that have to be protected to guarantee the next generation of offspring. Actually a lot of tribal/traditional warfare was fighting to kidnap fertile women. This eventually created a need to "protect" women and help the rise of patriarchy. Sorry for the broad historical simplification but I hope my point is understood.
This point doesn't apply to 40k though. The Imperium is callous with human life and all that matters is the continuation of the species as a whole. Humanity numbers in the trillions in 40k, 10 less women on a Hive World isn't going to be noticed or cared about. 10 more Space Marines is important.
The reason to promote FSM is to create a more inclusive atmosphere in the 40K gamming community, by ussing the flagship faction as a beacon for representation. I have my doubts that this would be as effective as other posters are argueing but It seems to be the central reason.
Except for the bit where this tactic works. Movies like Star Wars, Captain Marvel, and Wonder Woman give girls a character they can relate to and shows that it's not just men who can be strong/brave/tough/etc. Of course, I'm not saying that people should aspire to be Space Marines, fascists are bad but the point is that if people can see themselves represented in a story then they'll get involved.
Actually to reject the POV of a fellow poster that gives input of a smaller community about the issue being debated (gender representation in tabletop models) is very elitist and, may I say, exclusionary.
You made a point and I disagreed with that point and provided a counterargument. Just because you don't like the counterargument doesn't make me elitist or exclusionary.
As someone that plays both 40K as well as many other Tabletop miniature games; I find the attitude of a good proportion of 40k fans to be very elitist and exclusionary because they play "the biggest game" which in their mindset makes it the best and the only one that really matter (and why many dont play or bother about other similar games to 40k which they might actually enjoy better). Its like the cockiness of the fan of the big football team. Some of your words remain me of this.
You have derail my arguments, I tried to introduce new information into an already stagnated topic but it wasnt even taken into account based on something completelly tangent regarding to my point.
Size is not the only argument.
If the information that can be debated is restricted in this manner, there can be no real debate.
From my POV, historically women have been excluded from the military not because they are not fit for combat duty but rather for a demographic reason... on ancient times young men were expandable and could be "wasted" in battle, young women were a valuable asset for the community that have to be protected to guarantee the next generation of offspring. Actually a lot of tribal/traditional warfare was fighting to kidnap fertile women. This eventually created a need to "protect" women and help the rise of patriarchy. Sorry for the broad historical simplification but I hope my point is understood.
This point doesn't apply to 40k though. The Imperium is callous with human life and all that matters is the continuation of the species as a whole. Humanity numbers in the trillions in 40k, 10 less women on a Hive World isn't going to be noticed or cared about. 10 more Space Marines is important.
The reason to promote FSM is to create a more inclusive atmosphere in the 40K gamming community, by ussing the flagship faction as a beacon for representation. I have my doubts that this would be as effective as other posters are argueing but It seems to be the central reason.
Except for the bit where this tactic works. Movies like Star Wars, Captain Marvel, and Wonder Woman give girls a character they can relate to and shows that it's not just men who can be strong/brave/tough/etc. Of course, I'm not saying that people should aspire to be Space Marines, fascists are bad but the point is that if people can see themselves represented in a story then they'll get involved.
Please stop framing my words in a context in which they dont make sense. A fellow poster was talking about "being dettached" from reality so I give some historical context, I wasnt speaking about the 40K imperium of man in that instance.
If its unaceptable to use Infinity as a reference point for speaking about 40K, its not acceptable to use huge blockbuster movies as a referencee for 40K. This type of double standards dont seem to be ethical.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/09 15:03:44
I just want to add a point about "biology" because it always get me, and I think I finally found a way to express that:
WOMEN ARE STRONGER THAN MAN.
At least for all that is important to become (note carefully: not to be) a Space Marine. Henceforth, their exclusion actively damage the setting making it more implausible than what will be if the opposite would be true.
To specify better: man are bigger and stronger than women? Irrelevant: Marine are posthuman bulkhead and we have clear example (Blood Angel) of weaklings being perfectly fine after the transformation. So it is definitely clear that it doesn't matter how physically you have before.
But then, what about the transformation process itself?
It is a bombardment of hormones and therapies that can kill any candidate, right?
Guess what gender is more resilient to changes, already used to experience hormonal imbalances and biologically suited to the teally extreme changes required to give birth?
Spoiler alert: not men, for sure.
So, if you think men are better candidates to be Space Marine, maybe you may aspire to be the Emperor... but you aren't cut to be the Emperor's Genetist for sure.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/09 15:13:33
I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it.
So now that we have gone full circle 20+ times, we are back to the financials of GW and world view politics. This is the definition of insanity. I hate to be binary, but there is an entire side of this debate that are too scared to come out and say they do not want Female Space Marines Period. They have to quantify it with all sorts of irrelevant jargon, or flat out call the other side zealots or some such bunk. Have the courage to at least state your convictions.
I'll start:
I want female Space marines because I feel it would foster a more welcoming atmosphere for females or non binary gender queer persons, and make the environment LESS welcoming for people who are against it.
More plainly: I want to exclude people from the hobby that don't support gender based inclusivity.
Vatsetis wrote: As someone that plays both 40K as well as many other Tabletop miniature games; I find the attitude of a good proportion of 40k fans to be very elitist and exclusionary because they play "the biggest game" which in their mindset makes it the best and the only one that really matter (and why many dont play or bother about other similar games to 40k which they might actually enjoy better). Its like the cockiness of the fan of the big football team. Some of your words remain me of this.
Ok, not sure why that's relevant. This is a discussion where we discuss things and you called me elitist and exclusionary because I disagreed with your point. Next time lead with what you've said above instead of what you actually did.
You have derail my arguments, I tried to introduce new information into an already stagnated topic but it wasnt even taken into account based on something completelly tangent regarding to my point.
You introduced new information and I disagreed that the information you provided was relevant or valid to the discussion. At that point, it was on you to discuss further why you thought your point was relevant but all you did was call me exclusionary.
Size is not the only argument.
It is when we're talking about representation in media. Infinity is a niche hobby that most people aren't going to have as their first TTWG, 40k on the other hand is not and has a much wider market reach.
A small miniatures company is not comparable to a large company with 10 times the production capacity/capital/market and media presence.
If the information that can be debated is restricted in this manner, there can be no real debate.
I'm not restricting you from posting, I'm disagreeing with what you have said and I laid out my reasoning behind it.
Please stop framing my words in a context in which they dont make sense. A fellow poster was talking about "being dettached" from reality so I give some historical context, I wasnt speaking about the 40K imperium of man in that instance.
Table was calling pro-female SM people "detached from reality" and then proceeded to list a bunch of things that don't apply to Space Marines. You're post brought in more points that aren't relevant to Space Marines or 40k. You've misread what Table has posted.
If its unaceptable to use Infinity as a reference point for speaking about 40K, its not acceptable to use huge blockbuster movies as a referencee for 40K. This type of double standards dont seem to be ethical.
Using something like Marvel or Star Wars as a comparison on how representation matters makes sense to me because it's exactly the kind of change 40k would be making. It would be moving away from a focus on male models (men superheroes like Batman or Superman) and presenting a more diverse range (Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel).
If Infinity always had a diverse model range but that didn't bring people into the game then it's not inclusivity that's the issue, it's that Infinity is a small fish in a big pond dominated by the games and models made by GW and it couldn't compete.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/09 15:57:41
Table wrote: Wanting female space marines could be for many reasons. But to act like one of them isn't political is just as myopic. Where was the outrage and roar for inclusion 10 years ago? The main thing that scares me is the absolute detachment from reality that some people seem to have. In life human males are stronger than human females. It is not just muscle mass. Men are built by biology to fight and hunt. There is a reason why sports are divided by sex. There is a reason why armies throughout history have been mostly male. And it is not because of "i hate girls".
Now 40k is a fictional universe, we all know this. So not all the rules of reality apply. But 40k, like most science fiction works when we have basis of comparison in our real world. There are very good reasons in game why space marines are male only. And once more, it isn't about "i hate girls". Well, for some it is I would guess. To paint everyone of that view point as the same as the he-man woman haters squad is just as bad as any bigotry. It only shows how small your perception really is.
But I do have a question that pro female marine fans have never answered on this forum. WHY do you want female space marines? There is a faction of female warriors already in the game. And while GW has historically not been kind to that faction, things are changing. Inclusion for inclusions sake is not a real reason. Is it about forcing your morality on others for a fleeting feeling of power? Is it to signal your morality? is it to take things from others you find to be less than yourself? I seriously cannot think of a decent reason to do this and find at times the above examples to be true. But my observations are biased. So if you would kindly illuminate your reasons so I can adjust my views accordingly.
I would be 100% ok with sisters of battle being just as powerful as the marines in lore. And that is perhaps what people should be pushing for.
On a side note, before I am called a number of names and my intentions are called out to be nefarious, I shall give you a tiny bit of personal history. I have a wife and a mother that I love more than any man. I in no way think that females are worth less than males. Perhaps there are good reasons why people do not want female marines. Just as I assume there are good reasons for people to want them.
You're an American right? As an American, we are taught certain principles throughout our life, whether it be by our parents, our teachers, our mentors, our friends, or other close acquaintances. Those principles are very simple, ranging from judicial ones, to more individual ones. Freedom to express, freedom to defend yourself, and your loved ones. Right to be judged as an equal amongst peers. Then ones that are not clearly defined by our code of law, but taught to every youth on this cherished land as far as I know; such as: if you value your freedoms, it would be wise to respect those same freedoms in all other individuals, regardless of origin, of faith, of upbringing. Part of that is respect, part of it is preservation of dignity, for yourself, and for others. The ones who are found in evidence based court to have violated that dignity, and our code of law, have actively forfeited those rights.
Then there are some rights that are not in the American front consciousness yet. But have been nodded at, and theorized in some of the most hallowed documents in human history. The pursuit of happiness, and freedom of choice. Freedom of Choice.
As a freedom loving individual, if you ever say to me you can choose between having one option, or more, I will always choose to have more options. Only recently in the past years, through personal growth, have I come to realize how valuable the pursuit of happiness, and freedom of choice have become to me as an individual, how much I value those freedoms in those I love, and due to events over the past decade; how fragile those freedoms can be for us Americans.
If you give me an option, and say to me: "You can either not have a gun, or you can have a gun and not need to use it." I will always choose the more option.
If you say to me: "You can have one megacorporation and have your stuff delivered super-fast, or you can have a ton of small companies that fight each other and inadvertently promote fairness." I will always choose the more option.
If you say to me: "You cannot have abortions and same-sex marriage, or you can have both, and you need not practice either." I will always choose the more option.
Regardless of personal interest in having female space marines, if you give me an option, and say to me: "We can just have male space marines, or we can have both male and female space marines, and you can just make your army however you like to." I will always choose the more option.
For me, personal preference has a little to do with it. I took up 40K as a hobby when Space Marines were all male. I still have all male space marines. My vostroyans, death korps, and tau have always been all male. I'll most likely keep most of them all male. But on moral principle, if you say to me, you can either have one freedom, or more freedoms. I will always choose more.
I will forever remain humble because I know I could have less.
I will always be grateful because I remember I've had less.
From my POV, historically women have been excluded from the military not because they are not fit for combat duty but rather for a demographic reason... on ancient times young men were expandable and could be "wasted" in battle, young women were a valuable asset for the community that have to be protected to guarantee the next generation of offspring. Actually a lot of tribal/traditional warfare was fighting to kidnap fertile women. This eventually created a need to "protect" women and help the rise of patriarchy. Sorry for the broad historical simplification but I hope my point is understood.
My wife as a herdsman would affirm the cold logic of that view. Hens are kept for laying eggs, most roosters are called "fryers". Heffers are kept for dairy, most bull calves are for meat.
It would not be surprising to find planets and space marine chapters in the IOM that obserive the same cold logic and prioritize putting men as tithes and combatants.
Nevertheless, women do appear in the guard and in Sisters of Battle, so it's clearly not a firm universal rule in the IOM.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/10 04:29:59
Actually to reject the POV of a fellow poster that gives input of a smaller community about the issue being debated (gender representation in tabletop models) is very elitist and, may I say, exclusionary.
You made a point and I disagreed with that point and provided a counterargument. Just because you don't like the counterargument doesn't make me elitist or exclusionary.
As someone that plays both 40K as well as many other Tabletop miniature games; I find the attitude of a good proportion of 40k fans to be very elitist and exclusionary because they play "the biggest game" which in their mindset makes it the best and the only one that really matter (and why many dont play or bother about other similar games to 40k which they might actually enjoy better). Its like the cockiness of the fan of the big football team. Some of your words remain me of this.
You have derail my arguments, I tried to introduce new information into an already stagnated topic but it wasnt even taken into account based on something completelly tangent regarding to my point.
Size is not the only argument.
If the information that can be debated is restricted in this manner, there can be no real debate.
From my POV, historically women have been excluded from the military not because they are not fit for combat duty but rather for a demographic reason... on ancient times young men were expandable and could be "wasted" in battle, young women were a valuable asset for the community that have to be protected to guarantee the next generation of offspring. Actually a lot of tribal/traditional warfare was fighting to kidnap fertile women. This eventually created a need to "protect" women and help the rise of patriarchy. Sorry for the broad historical simplification but I hope my point is understood.
This point doesn't apply to 40k though. The Imperium is callous with human life and all that matters is the continuation of the species as a whole. Humanity numbers in the trillions in 40k, 10 less women on a Hive World isn't going to be noticed or cared about. 10 more Space Marines is important.
The reason to promote FSM is to create a more inclusive atmosphere in the 40K gamming community, by ussing the flagship faction as a beacon for representation. I have my doubts that this would be as effective as other posters are argueing but It seems to be the central reason.
Except for the bit where this tactic works. Movies like Star Wars, Captain Marvel, and Wonder Woman give girls a character they can relate to and shows that it's not just men who can be strong/brave/tough/etc. Of course, I'm not saying that people should aspire to be Space Marines, fascists are bad but the point is that if people can see themselves represented in a story then they'll get involved.
Please stop framing my words in a context in which they dont make sense. A fellow poster was talking about "being dettached" from reality so I give some historical context, I wasnt speaking about the 40K imperium of man in that instance.
If its unaceptable to use Infinity as a reference point for speaking about 40K, its not acceptable to use huge blockbuster movies as a referencee for 40K. This type of double standards dont seem to be ethical.
Every time someone disagrees with you they are not misquoting or representing you.
Infinity having more inclusion but being less popular or successful, those two thing may well not be connected. Inclusion in of its self does not guarantee success. The failure of infinity was down to many things, but not it’s diversity of representation. 40K in the other hand is the market leader and Already hugely successful, increase representation would not harm it and cause it to fail because infinity didn’t do well with women characters in it.
The comparison to marvel has its flaws as well but is an example of a market leader increasing diversity and doing well. They key here is to how it is handled by GW. There is a thread for that so won’t go into it here. You comparison is not so much apples vs oranges, it’s apples vs a smaller less tasty fruit that most people haven’t tried.
some bloke wrote: I have just made a thread in which I hope everyone will post their preferred method for how to implement this change, if it were to be changed.
There will be an option on the poll for not changing it, as no views should be discounted!
I hope that when I get this poll together, it will help us all to see how people view the merits and approaches of changing the lore - did Cawl do it, has it always been there, do female marines just look almost identical to men, that sort of thing!
Wanting female space marines could be for many reasons. But to act like one of them isn't political is just as myopic. Where was the outrage and roar for inclusion 10 years ago?
The main thing that scares me is the absolute detachment from reality that some people seem to have. In life human males are stronger than human females. It is not just muscle mass. Men are built by biology to fight and hunt. There is a reason why sports are divided by sex. There is a reason why armies throughout history have been mostly male. And it is not because of "i hate girls".
Now 40k is a fictional universe, we all know this. So not all the rules of reality apply. But 40k, like most science fiction works when we have basis of comparison in our real world. There are very good reasons in game why space marines are male only. And once more, it isn't about "i hate girls". Well, for some it is I would guess. To paint everyone of that view point as the same as the he-man woman haters squad is just as bad as any bigotry. It only shows how small your perception really is.
But I do have a question that pro female marine fans have never answered on this forum. WHY do you want female space marines? There is a faction of female warriors already in the game. And while GW has historically not been kind to that faction, things are changing. Inclusion for inclusions sake is not a real reason. Is it about forcing your morality on others for a fleeting feeling of power? Is it to signal your morality? is it to take things from others you find to be less than yourself? I seriously cannot think of a decent reason to do this and find at times the above examples to be true. But my observations are biased. So if you would kindly illuminate your reasons so I can adjust my views accordingly.
I would be 100% ok with sisters of battle being just as powerful as the marines in lore. And that is perhaps what people should be pushing for.
On a side note, before I am called a number of names and my intentions are called out to be nefarious, I shall give you a tiny bit of personal history. I have a wife and a mother that I love more than any man. I in no way think that females are worth less than males. Perhaps there are good reasons why people do not want female marines. Just as I assume there are good reasons for people to want them.
Now, you can insult me.
Of course it’s political, every pro female marine person on here as acknowledged it will be for improve inclusivity and representation. Our collective argument is mainly that that is a good thing. I have no issue with politics in games. 40K has the same current politics in it already. New kits have more female options and ethnically diverse heads in them already as drive from GW to include representation. FSM is the next step.
If you are anti politics in 40K then are you against them releasing ethnically diverse heads and paints? Or should 40K stay all white like it was in the 90s? (No insult just a question)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/10 11:57:02
1) for me personally I like highly varied miniatures. The more ways a marine is allowed to look, the more freedom I have as a modeler. Thats why I include female marines in my armies
2) I think excluding women, or anyone, from participating in a good old fashioned power fantasy is a gakky thing to do.
Let me use First Person Shooter video games as an analogy for a sec.
The core assumptions of the fps genre, in my experience tend to be
1) the protagonist is someone who never tires regardless of how long they move and fight
2) the protagonist is someone who can be shot by one or more bullets fired from a gun and can continue to fight at the same level of effectiveness
3) the protagonist is unaffected by fear or any other emotion and fights exactly the same while under fire as while not
Now, a few FPS games eschew these tropes, but there is no reality where an FPS makes these three assumptions and anyone raises a "realism" based objection.
In my eyes it's extremely, extremely hard to not view a "realism" based objection to the invincible, omnicapable, untiring, fearless protagonist being a woman rather than a man as coming from anywhere but a place of sexism.
I think these kinds of power fantasies are fantastic in our frustrating modern world, and I think telling women "well....you can participate, but weve separated out your designated faction over here, and you've got to be OK with way fewer customization options and your ladies are less than 1/2 as powerful as the male power fantasy factions" is lame. The justification for that doesn't have to come from sexism, but I DEFINITELY think it very often does.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
From my POV, historically women have been excluded from the military not because they are not fit for combat duty but rather for a demographic reason... on ancient times young men were expandable and could be "wasted" in battle, young women were a valuable asset for the community that have to be protected to guarantee the next generation of offspring. Actually a lot of tribal/traditional warfare was fighting to kidnap fertile women. This eventually created a need to "protect" women and help the rise of patriarchy. Sorry for the broad historical simplification but I hope my point is understood.
My wife as a herdsman would affirm the cold logic of that view. Hens are kept for laying eggs, most roosters are called "fryers". Heffers are kept for dairy, most bull calves are for meat.
It would not be surprising to find planets and space marine chapters in the IOM that obserive the same cold logic and prioritize putting men as tithes and combatants.
Nevertheless, women do appear in the guard and in Sisters of Battle, so it's clearly not a firm universal rule in the IOM.
Sure. And more recently, warfare has very very often been decided from extreme ranges where the combatants cannot see one another at all, but in 40k that aspect is not incorporated despite its vastly superior realism, simply because it is not a fun concept to create a wargame around. Indeed, maintenance of supply lines and ammunition has been historically absolutely CRUCIAL to the outcome of warfare. But 40k basically only focuses on "the fun parts"
So id reject the idea that itd be more historical for women in 40k to be excluded from the battlefield for reasons of needing to be baby factories because that does not sound fun.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Grimskul wrote: I feel part of the problem is that realistically that assuming they would want women for some reason to become SM, the majority of SM trials forced on aspirants would mean that women who were chosen would be weeded out incredibly early on just given the biological advantages a man has over a woman physically. Think about US Navy Seals, they're open to women to join but so far no one has joined or made it past the initial training to make the cut. Now imagine that, but 10x worse and grueling, with additional possibility of you not being able to cope with the marine implants. The likelihood of women becoming marines, even with this change, would be so low that their representation would be incredibly rare and thus basically pointless besides as a token attempt at representation.
I'd much prefer they show more female representation in the guard than marines, because not only is it more realistic there, but the model range is already in desperate need of a reboot and it doesn't require significant retconning to make it happen.
This doesn't really apply to Space Marines. According to a bit of over-the-top grimdark fluff, Space Marine aspirants in most Codex-compliant Chapters begin their training as preteens. If little boys can successfully pass Space Marine initiations then that means that either Space Marine initiations aren't as though as some stories make them up to be or that the "little boys" they recruit are hulking mutant monstrosities rather than regular children. Given the fact that 40k fluff is deliberately written from an "unreliable narrator" point of view (and thus the stories about Space Marine training may represent propaganda) and that many Space Marine chapters recruit from planets that are deadly and irradiated hell-holes, both could be true.
Either way, there is no objection to female Space Marines to be found here since if the initiations can be passed by preteens (either because they are really easy or because the "preteens" are mutant freaks much stronger than regular children) they could be passed by women/girls as well.
That said, I personally don't want to see female Space Marines. It is a major lore chance that I feel is not necessary since there are plenty of other places GW can increase female representation. Female Space Marines would also clash thematically with the Sisters of Battle (since, you know it takes away their shtick of being the female counterpart to the male Space Marines). It might work if we also get male Sisters of Battle (removing the gender theme from both factions entirely), but to be honest if we need more power-armored women in 40K, then personally I'd much rather see female Custodes than female Space Marines.
I've skimmed this thread and have had some thoughts gnawing at the back of my head, so here goes:
1. Is there actually a lore-reason for all male space marines or is it just assumed? I went through the part concerning space marines in the old RT rule book and the Angels of death codex from 2nd ed, and can't find that explicitly stated anywhere that all marines are male, in some parts it says "men" but it is definitely possible to interpret this as "people in general". But I'm kind of out of the loop so I might have missed a later explicit explanation.
2. From my point of view, being male is not a core essence of being a marine. For me the essence of "marinehood" is a) being psycho-indoctrinated (which I read as being basically inured to fear and ptsd and shell shock and unquestionably loyal) b) being genetically and biologically modified to the point of being superhuman (not in the comic book sense) c) being a psychotic and merciless killer that hate all your enemies and d) wearing power armour and using bolt weapons. All this is achievable by either gender. In this way marines are extremely effective as a gender equal faction.
3. This is beside the point regarding the topic at hand, but reading this thread has more than anything made me think about space marines in general and how they're presented. There is a strange duality to the presentation of the Marine, it is botht hero and monster. I remember reading some of the early HH-books and thinking that the marines are presented as too human, the protagonists could be put into any random sci-fi romp as the human lead character without any difficulty.
I think the 40k marines are victims of their own popularity which to me makes it feel a bit problematic to discuss them as the "flagship faction" and face of the game and company. Since the beginning they've been the ultimate warriors of the human race, yet barely human themselves. Superhuman psychotic killers with little regard to human life fighting in the countless wars for what is basically the most evil of all human societies, they are not nice people, not even by 40k standards. Sadly I doubt GW or most of the fanbase share my view of marines, but going through the material I got available I cannot actually fathom how Space Marines became the most popular faction and think that this in itself is maybe cause for some reflection. I reject the idea of space marines as the protagonists.
4. I'm firmly in the camp that the existence of female marines should be "retconned" in as always having been there. Doesn't take much effort just write some short stories with marines with female names etc etc. In terms of models I think it would be stupid to differentiate the body between female and male marines. I could see heads for those that like their marines bare headed. But for me on a personal level if I played marines I would not use them if they were too "pretty" just as I dislike the idea of normal looking male marines.
The only lore reason for SM being male-only is a section of a passage from background written about 20 years ago in a non-core book for 40k. It's not been featured in Codexes since then and the only reference to SM being all-male in the 9th Edition Codex is where it refers to SM being the "gene-sons" of the Primarchs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/10 15:38:52
Stepped away for a wee bit, so in the interest of brevity, I'm not commenting on everything I missed. Sorry if I miss any particularly juicy bits there, feel free to direct them at me if I missed it. Suffice to say that I'm happy to let scotsman's views stand as my own. I will make comment on some of the things immediately after I last posted, but I understand that these may have been moved on from.
Vatsetis wrote:Nevertheless, being all male is quite a significant part of the actual Space Marine identity. Its quite obvious that they are an all male military organization because of real world sexism (probably not intentional, just a way of marketing a power fantasy towards teenagers in the 80´s, this of course dosent make it more reasonable) rather than any in universe reason (not that 40K lore is particularly consistent on most issues anyways).
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.
I have to disagree. Space Marines being male stands in counterpoint to their identity as a highly customisable and blank-slate faction. Their religious legacy is more than a little muddled, not to mention how being "monkly" doesn't even mean gender exclusivity (see monks in other cultures). The simple truth is that Space Marines have too many different cultural identities to be able to pin down and point to any of them, beyond simply just "super soldier warriors in space". Sure, you can point to Indomitus as "crusader knights aesthetic", but then I'll just point to Shadowspear at the more high-tech spec-ops style, or the Dark Imperium wave of very blank and unadorned Astartes. It's almost like Space Marines are a super flexible and customisable faction, and can't be ascribed to any single design aspect.
But, as you say yourself, they're only all-male because of real world sexism. So why are we continuing to support a system that only exists because of those reasons.
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.
Background tradition only matters if we can justify why it needs to be kept. I'm not in the habit of accepting things "because it's always been that way" - if it's such a good/iconic thing, then we should be able to defend it's inclusion beyond "because that's what the lore says". Give me stylistic reasons, give me design choices, give me things beyond "it is, so it is".
Actually it is quite clear that in GW design philosophy for the 40K Imperium "non mixed" military organizations are quite common... since we have four of them: Space Marines, Battle Sisters, Sisters of Silences and Custodes.
Again, you say "quite common", yet those factions are probably the rarest in the whole Imperium. In a properly represented Imperium, the vast majority of military forces in the Imperium are mixed gender, such as the PDF, the Astra Militarum, Scions, Inquisition, Assassinorum, AdMech, Knights, hell, even the Ecclesiarchy isn't even truly "all female", due to the existence of Arco-Flagellants and Preachers.
So, that's not even true in the first place. The Imperium is overwhelmingly gender-neutral.
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).
Except that the Imperium isn't institutionally sexist in the lore you claim to be arguing from. You're advocating to change the lore to justify further all-male Astartes, not defend it from what we currently see.
Yes, the Imperium is exclusionary, but we never see it against any real world peoples in an institutional manner. Race is ignored. We've found no evidence that "normal mutations" are discriminated against. And gender is largely ignored from an institutional perspective. So I'm sorry, but the lore doesn't paint the Imperium as sexist. Awful, yes. Xenophobic? Yes. But sexist? Not quite.
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).
Sure, but at that point you're inventing reasons why Space Marines need to be all male - not defending why they currently are, or should be.
And again, for all those reasons you invent for why Space Marines can't have women, why then shouldn't be Astra Militarum be all-male? Why are the Militarum gender-neutral, but the Astartes aren't?
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).
When I describe low profile, I mean "marketing material featuring Space Marines also features visibly women Astartes" - that should be pretty good at sending a different message.
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.
Why? Why does adding women need to be a major reboot? Is Space Marines being male *that* critical to the setting as a whole, because I don't think so at all.
And again, I think reducing Sister to just "women power armour faction" is a massive disservice to them, and outlines just further why Sisters of Battle are not an adequate form of representation for women, because they're just "the women power armour faction", according to you, instead of their own identity (which they very much are).
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).
They're really not sexualised at all. What's sexualised about Space Marine design? Sanguinary Guard are a specifically styled single unit from a single sub-type of Space Marines. Other than having male heads, Space Marines aren't exactly a gendered construct. And with just a helmeted head, a Space Marine could be anyone.
EDITED: Deadnight, quite rightly, called me out on a pretty badly worded and phrased section here, both publicly below, and privately. I used his points as a springboard to reject the "warrior monks = all male" argument I have so often seen, without clarifying that Deadnight himself didn't hold those views. What I wrote unfairly projected those arguments that I was rejecting on to him, and that is entirely inaccurate and improper, as Deadnight does not hold those beliefs. As a result, I am going to clarify those comments below in this edit, but the originals can be seen in Deadnight's quote tags below, so that I both don't misrepresent Deadnight, and that I am not misrepresenting my own error.
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.
As we have both already said, considering how many different traditions Space Marines can draw from, we shouldn't limit the definition of "monk" to only the Christian version - this would mean that Space Marines could still feasibly occupy both the role of "warrior monk" and still include women Astartes, as said later. "Monk" doesn't have to mean "all-male" when that is just as varied as monks being secluded, or ascetic, or peaceful, as Deadnight has illustrated by showcasing the variety of styles of monk.
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.
In Christian cultures, yes, monks are segregated. But in Asian cultures, the same cannot be said - which is why it is important that we all here recognise that the "warrior monk" design does not necessarily preclude including women, as Deadnight also states.
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.
Again, to springboard off of this, and direct outwards to when "warrior monk" is used by others as a reason for why women Astartes can't be a thing, when the only common thread that many people take from "monk" is "they're all male" (which is reductive of Asian monk orders), I have to wonder why that's the thing they choose to keep and focus on, and not other aspects, like their asceticism.
Directing the question outwards to people using "warrior monk" to defend all-male Astartes: why do Space Marines need to follow the gender aspect of monks when the other bits are happily ignored?
Curvaceous wrote:People don’t always need reminding that they’re in danger of getting beat up or betrayed or can’t be in boys’ club.
And similarly pretending that there isn't a problem at all is what leads for people to feel like their concerns about being excluded aren't being heard.
Introducing women Space Marines shouldn't contribute to what you describe, because that should go a way into removing the "boys club", instead of "reminding people it exists".
My response to some bloke, spoilered as usual!
Spoiler:
some bloke wrote:It is worth noting that if GW included marines with fish heads, and offered absolutely no explanation of why there are suddenly marines with fish heads in the lore except for a few token “fish-marine” pronouns in there, people would not be accepting that fish-marines are a thing.
People with fish heads are fictional. Women aren't. Why would people struggle to accept that women are a thing?
I feel like your grasp on how people accept change is being clouded by the fact that this involves women and sexist connotations. I know you’ll say “fish people don’t exist, and women do”, but that’s irrelevant to 40k. Chaos spawn, orks, eldar, tyranids etc. don’t exist in the real world, but they are in 40k, because 40k is fictional. Fiction is not restricted to only adding to the real world – it can also remove things as well, because it isn’t real.
But why is the fiction removing women? Why is that such an important aspect? And, again, if you remove those thirteen words from the lore, and just move on, there'd be no reason to believe that women could never be Astartes in the first place.
I shouldn't be having to debate why women are similar to fish people.
So back to the psychological debate we are having – whether or not how the introduction is made will affect its reception – try to take the sexism, representation, morals, and all that out of it and focus solely on the way it will affect people who aren’t affected by the problems we are trying to solve.
I can't do that, because a lot of the reasons for why people oppose women Astartes are rooted in those ideals.
Do we agree on that – that this should be treated just like any other change in 40k, and that we want it to be as well received as possible?
It should be treated like any other change in 40k, yes. The problem for you is that most changes in 40k are done exactly as I describe - with no fanfare or lore development. It just suddenly *exists*.
As for "as well received as possible", I don't believe that should include appeasement. So, yes - as well received as possible, without appeasement. And from your own argument, you're painting the lore as a form of appeasement.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: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.
I feel that I was perhaps wording it slightly wrong when I said that they would turn toxic – apologies. I was alluding to the idea that they would make the environment more toxic, rather than being outwardly toxic directly to women. They would make jokes about the change, and suggest – rightly, if no lore explanation justifies their appearance – that they were added solely for political reasons. Have you met the British public, and heard their views on politics? We are at our core a cynical bunch, who will take the mickey out of anything if given the ammunition.
Oh, I know we absolutely do that - but it doesn't excuse people taking those shots in the first place.
Again, as you say, we're a cynical bunch - which is why I have no doubts that people would still say, even with a lore explanation, that this was solely for political reasons.
Personally, I feel like women would feel more comfortable amongst a group of people joking about how Cawl can do anything and how any change they want they should just ask Cawl to do it, than a bunch of people who are joking about how space marines have been changed to become more PC by adding women. A woman could easily feel like this vein of joking implies that marines were better before women were added, even if they were only a criticism of how the change were implemented and not a criticism of the change itself.
The issue is that people wouldn't be just doing this. I believe that a significantly larger portion of people would be saying how the lore only advanced because of political reasons, and would basically paint Cawl as this SJW political influence on their hobby. This isn't even far fetched, as people were saying the same when Primaris were introduced.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: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 that happened, I would ask someone in the store why there were female marines now. What answer would you want people to give?
"Because it's cool, and 40k's always been about rule of cool". Same answer I'd give about things like Centurion warsuits, or grav-guns, or Stormtalons.
We’ve already discussed before how taking away people’s “but the lore says no” will ostracise them and their extreme views if they choose to keep them up. Why don’t you feel it important to say “but the lore says yes”?
Getting rid of the "lore says no" would change that to a "lore says yes", in the same way that it says yes about me having a Welsh Princedoms inspired Chapter.
Again, simply featuring women Astartes is an example of "lore says yes".
Sgt_Smudge wrote: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.
You’ve changed tack here. Originally the concept was to remove the viewpoint. To get rid of the idea that women should be playing sisters of battle because everyone else is either men or aliens. You said yourself that if people in the hobby see female models as normal, they will see women as normal too.
Absolutely, yes.
Now you’re suggesting that these same people, who have grown up in a hobby dominated by men and male models, who aren’t personally sexist but have inadvertently been spending their time in a sexist-by-apathy environment (nobody bothered to change it), and who we might find are somewhat skewed in their subconscious beliefs by this (which we have established as a part of the issue, otherwise adding female models wouldn’t help) should all leave because they resent change to their game – not because of the content, but the application. You’ve moved from re-education to purging. I think that’s a bit of an extreme jump.
Why should I be "re-educating" people who are so actively opposed to women?
I'm not saying to "purge" the slightest resistance, not at all. But I'd like to think that most people should be able to let go of their lore hangups and simply accept that women Astartes exist, instead of making the environment toxic. As I've seen a couple times alluded to in the thread since my absence, there's this idea of "I was excluded/had injustices done to me, that's why I don't want change" - and that's not an excuse for continuing to exclude others. There's only so far people's excuses can go to justify their actions.
Let’s just say the change is made, and there are some people who aren’t happy about it. Do you really think that they will just go away? Now let’s say the change is done badly and there are more people unhappy about it. Some say “the change was political, raar!” and others say “The change was unnecessary, marines should be men, raar!”. These two groups will be joined by the common message of “The change was bad, raar!”, and will find vindication in their views from one another.
Sure - and I'd have to then have the same conversation we're having right now with the "the change was unnecessary!" group (which would almost certainly still exist with your proposed idea still) and challenge why Space Marines need to men in the first place.
Nothing changes, as far as I'm concerned, except they lose legitimacy.
I guarantee you that if they just made female marine models without saying a thing about them anywhere, everyone would ask where female marines came from, and when no lore reason arises, they will look elsewhere.
I'm sorry, but no. I know first hand that this doesn't work, because this happened with Primaris.
Primaris had lore explanations, had reasons to exist in canon, and were otherwise watertight with lore. And yet you still have large amounts of people seeing them as a cash-grab, a way for GW to resell everyone their Space Marines, a kiddification of 40k, or anything other than "it's just the lore".
In AoS, Stormcast being gender-neutral is explained in lore (Sigmar simply just picks up any worthy soul for his army), but some people still see it as "political", or "SJWs infiltrating the hobby".
Sorry, but no matter what lore reason GW give, the simple fact that it will change in the first place will enough for these people to cry "politics".
Look at it this way – we are expecting 3 types of people to come out of this change – we can disregard the numbers of them for now, as we’re just going back and forth on that one! The people are for, against, and don’t know how they feel. The goal is for the people who are for the change to get as many people who haven’t made opinions about it onto their side.
I don't think I fully agree. The goal for people for the change is to dismantle arguments against that change. That doesn't mean swaying people over via appeasement tactics. That means elaborating on why the arguments in favour of status quo are flawed and in what way. People can react in two ways - with hostility when their views are exposed, or can learn and develop their views, like I believe both of us have done (definitely on my end - I used to be anti-women Astartes. Only through my arguments being dismantled and reflected on was I able to realise how flawed my stance was).
But I can't dictate how people choose to react to their arguments being shown wrong.
The people who are against it are armed with “This is only political, it’s politics interfering with the hobby, the only reason they added it was for politics and not for the game, space marines have always been male and they’ve only put this in to avoid offending snowflakes” as their argument.
What are the people who are for it armed with for their argument? “Actually it’s a good change”. That’s it. They can’t say “actually Cawl did >loads of stuff here<”, so it’s not political, it’s just the progression of the 40k storyline!” if there’s nothing justifying their existence.
The people who are for it are armed with "there's literally no justifiably consistent reason why Space Marines need to be all-male, so why are they?" and "I want people to have as much choice as possible in their hobby".
Take any other thing in 40k. Anything. Why are there thousand sons? It’s not to pander to the Egyptian crowd, it’s because >all the lore about T-Sons here<. “Awesome, that’s so cool!” replies the inquisitive newcomer! Why are there chaos spawn? >loads of lore goes here< “Ew, that’s gross!” says the newcomer. Why were heldrakes added? >insert daemon engine lore in here<. Why were primaris marines added? >Insert primaris lore here<. Why were Custodes added? >Insert Custodes lore here<. Knights? Lore. Chaos knights? Lore. Ork buggies? Lore. Death Guard as their own codex? Lore. Female marines? >complete absence of lore<. Oh, must have been for another reason then.
Why are women Guardsmen a thing? Women Knights? Women Tau? Women Eldar? Women Genestealer Cultists? Oh yeah - there isn't any, because having women doesn't need justification.
Do we have a lore reason why Male Marines exist? Male Guardsmen? Male Custodes? No, of course not, and we don't need one, because real human people literally just existing doesn't need lore.
For all that women are a real thing in real life, woman space marines aren’t a thing right now, and if that is changed without changing the lore, then they will stick out like a sore thumb.
But WHY aren't women Space Marines a thing right now??
They literally won't stick out at all any more so than women Guardsmen stick out.
You can say “they should have been there from the start”, but the fact of the matter is that they weren’t
Neither were grav-guns, or Centurions, or Stormravens or any of the countless other things GW just invented.
Why is "women" such a hard hurdle?
People are used to a universe where marines are all male, and changing that without comment will leave people feeling confused about why.
"Because it's cool, and we wanted to give people options. Same reason why we have all these cool new units!"
It comes down to that – people will want to know why, regardless of how we implement this. If we say nothing, they will assume their own things. And we already know how well “make up your own lore” has gone for people making female marines, so they can’t go saying “Cawl dun it”, and they will know enough about the lore to say “it wasn’t always like this”, so they will find the only other option – politics has interfered with the game.
People will make that assumption regardless of whatever reason you give, unfortunately - as evidenced by Primaris and women Stormcast. If someone wants to ascribe political motivations to it, they will, no matter what you tell them.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: 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.
And every one of those things is lacking any explanation in the lore? There’s nothing about them in the books, is there? No write-up of what a grav-gun does, no entire-page-of-fluff about every codex entry in the codex?
Yes. The explanation for how they came to be, and how come they weren't there before on older models is never addressed. There's no "Celisarius Bawl invented the grav-gun in M41, and that's why you never see them in the Tyrannic Wars". It's like they always existed.
The only lore they have is literally "these exist now". Which is exactly what I'm advocating for women Astartes.
My point is that it’s not just a permissive ruleset, it’s a permissive lore. If it’s not written into the lore, then it doesn’t feel like it’s part of the actual 40k universe. If I made fish-marines, they will exist on the tabletop, and will have rules as marines, but as there’s nothing saying fish marines exist then it’s not canonical.
So, did black Space Marines not exist until they were explicitly mentioned/shown? Was everyone in the Imperium white?
The lore isn't "permissive" at all, otherwise the whole concept of custom Chapters is killed in the crib. The lore is incredibly flexible and open-ended to player creativity, with only a handful of hard limits and restrictions - which is why the whole "you can do anything except have women in your Space Marines" is so bafflingly bizarre.
And you mention "fish people" - but women aren't fish people, they're literal human beings.
The whole issue people have had is dingbats using “the lore says” as a reason to be highly unpleasant to people making female marines. “female marines aren’t canon” is their argument. Things only become canon by being written into the lore. So if you don’t write female marines into the lore, they aren’t canon, and these idiots still have their ammo to continue being dingbats.
You can include women Astartes in the lore without having to invent Cawl making them a thing. Women Astartes can exist just like how male Astartes do - by simply existing.
I don't get why you seem to think that "women being written in the lore" means "we need to explain how they suddnely exist" instead of just "we include women in the lore".
Sgt_Smudge wrote: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?
Yes. But a lot of people won’t see how female marines will let women be a part of the hobby. When I joined this thread, I didn’t see how making female marines would let women be a part of the hobby.
And so I explain that to them, instead of obfuscating it.
They want the game designers to make the game better. They want every release to be about improving the game, furthering the lore, finding out what happens next and what cool new models they can play.
Exactly - they never cared about women in the first place. So when women Astartes are added, no matter what lore reason you give, they'll still grimace at the inclusion of women, because they don't care about women. Simply including women will be seen as political, because to them, anything not in the game is "political", and because women weren't in the game before, this will be political.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: 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".
So why do you seem so opposed to writing in something in the lore which directly and unavoidably removes that ammunition?
Because that ammunition can be removed without writing things in as well.
The problem with writing stuff in is that it still creates the impression that the lore is more important than people, and that it still doesn't remove that "but this was a political change!!" motive.
If GW start making female marines without lore justification then people will say they are being inconsistent with their own lore and start looking for other reasons why it’s been changed. Most people could be easily appeased and brought on-side by writing about the change in the lore.
As I've said, the lore can include women without Cawl needing to suddenly invent them. The lore can include women by simply... including women.
I'll go back to the thing about how apparently the lore is permissive. We had very few, if any, examples of non-white Space Marines. Did we need a piece of lore explaining how suddenly Kelisarius Bhawl figured out how to make Space Marines from non-white recruits? Of course not, because it was enough just to say "yeah, this is a thing now". It didn't need "explaining" because there was nothing to explain.
Every change in 40k needs to be justified in the lore.
No, it doesn't. And GW don't even agree with that principle. As I've said - grav-guns, Stormtalons, Centurion suits, etc etc.
And every change has been – some done better and some done worse, but every model on the tabletop has lore backing up its ability to represent the factions in the lore.
No, they don't - not like how you're describing how you want to add women Astartes.
Where's the lore "backing up" women Tau? Because I don't think anything ever backs it up beyond "this exists".
Space Marines (or Astartes) are a fictional concept – the models only exist to represent them. If you want to change the models, then you need to change the lore so that the models you are making continue to represent the fictional concept of marines.
Sure. So you change the lore to say that Space Marines are gender neutral, and anyone can be recruited, or simply remove any mention of exclusionary recruiting processes.
Simple.
The models not being representative isn’t the issue, it’s the lore not being representative.
No, it is both. The lore for guardsmen is gender-neutral, but the models aren't. This is a change that needs to happen,*as well as Space Marine too*.
The lore says “they’s all men and they’s big” and the models are all men and the yare big, so the models are perfectly representing the lore. Nobody can say “space marine models don’t look like space marines”, can they? They used to say they were too short, but primaris has fixed that!
But why does the lore say they need to be men? Especially as the Space Marine design has evolved beyond their identity being tied to them being all men.
Again, back to the model front - Space Marines are the flagship of 40k, and get disproportionately more screen time than any other faction and resources allocated to them. Why is the flagship a mono-gender faction?
So if you change the models and not the lore, then the models no longer represent the lore and you will get people saying “I’m not using female models as they aren’t in the lore”, which is obviously a bad result! So you need to change the lore to say “Space marines are people and they are big and fight in power armour and have chainswords and bolters”, and then have the models represent big people with chainswords and bolters, some of which are women, and it all fits together.
Nobody is saying “You have to justify adding women space marines in the lore because they are women!”. They are saying “You have to justify model changes in the lore because the two have to match”.
Yes, agreed!
But I fail to see why I need to invent some kind of lore reason why Cawl can now suddenly make women Astartes instead of just "Space Marines recruit from all manner of human stock." Why does the lore need to act like this is new, instead of just stating it as a fact?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: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?
Is it lying about the motivations to give explanations in the lore as to why female marines are now a thing?
When those explanations apparently exist only to stop people from crying "politics!"? Yes, I think so.
As I’ve said above, the lore and the models have to match.
Yes, agreed. I don't disagree on that - it's why Guardsmen are not as "representative" as people claim them to be, because their models don't match that.
If GW decided to release animal-headed marines without a word of why they did so in the lore, people would be confused about their existence. People making monkey-marines might get flak from others because there is no reason for monkey marines to exist in the lore. Lots of people would direct hatred towards the monkey-marine models, for not matching the world they are supposed to represent.
I hate to say it again, but women are normal humans. Not fictional monkey people.
If there were suddenly female marine models without lore explanation, people would ask why. If there was a lore explanation, the answer wouldn’t be “’cos politics”.
I'm not saying give no lore explanation. I'm saying that the lore explanation doesn't need to be "Cawl suddenly invented them" or "here's why we never had women Space Marines before".
You say that the lore needs to be reflective of the models, and vice versa. I agree. Why can't the lore simply be changed to "Space Marines recruit from male and female stock". There's the lore explanation for why women Space Marines exist.
"Ah, but that's not what I was asking!", you'll say. You were asking for a lore explanation for the *change*. But that has nothing to do with the models existing in the first place. The models are justified by *my* lore explanation, but the change isn't justified - because the change doesn't need justification.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: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.
I appreciate your disclaimer, I know how hard it can be to not sound like an arse on the internet! I also have respect for you in your views, which I truly hope comes across!
It comes across, you needn't worry!
I don’t care overmuch about the people who will find politics no matter what – they are a minority. The vast majority of people will only care about what the lore says. But if the lore says nothing, they will look for their answers elsewhere.
Again, I don't believe this is a minority. I would like to be wrong, but the people who would cry politics about this are the kind of people who would always cry politics about that. I believe that the majority of people you refer to, the ones who care about the lore, would likely just shrug their shoulders and get over it - but those who would cry politics would always do so.
Look at primaris – people got shirty about that, saying it was a money grab and so on, but most people now say it’s a thing Cawl did and yadda yadda. There will be an initial grumble from the community as any change happens, but when it settles down and people ask “where did female marines come from”, there needs to be an answer which doesn’t make it sound like a token gesture.
Again, no insult or offence intended, but I think you're overestimating how people have just accepted "Cawl did it", and how it's more just that they've stopped complaining about the external reasons. They're not accepting the lore, they're just not complaining as loudly.
Hell, just look at the renaming of the Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum. GW gave a reason why they were called the Astra Militarum (it's their High Gothic name), but that doesn't stop people still calling them the Imperial Guard and actively telling GW to shove their new name where the sun don't shine (for what it's worth, I'm indifferent. I use Astartes and Space Marine interchangeably, and I do the same for the AM/IG).
Sgt_Smudge wrote: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".
But right now space marines don’t have women, and they have a lore reason why. Without contradicting it, we’ve already seen people pull 20+yr old lore out and say “this says no!”
Yes - so we just get rid of those 13 words preventing it, and problem solved. Now there's no reason they can't be gender neutral, just like Tau and Guardsmen.
Obviously natural populations like guard and tau and GSC will have women, it goes without saying. But Space Marines are made, not born, and they currently are all male for lore reasons, and everyone knows they are all male.
Sure, Space Marines are "made" - but why do they need to be only "made" from male recruits, if that lore (which I've spent all thread explaining how it doesn't really fit or need to exist) didn't exist?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: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.
Anyone who wants to hear political reasons will, yes. But what about the vast amount of people who just want a reason? Any reason? Some justification for a change being made to their game, with no ulterior motives behind their curiosity? What happens when the only reason they hear is “because politics”?
They can hear any reason they like - they can hear "because it's cool", "because Cawl said so", or "because politics" - it's their choice to choose what they actually take on board.
All I'm saying is that I don't think for a second that the lore explanation would be enough, or the preventative measure you describe it to be.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: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.
Not everyone goes looking for reasons with bias behind them. Look at Primaris. When they turned up, everyone whinged about them. Now they’re just normal. They had lore to back up their existence, and a lot of people got excited about the lore and bought the models. Lots of people said “they’re just a money grab”, but now more lore has come out explaining their place in 40k, those people are generally barely acknowledged or just told to shut up about it already by the people who are too busy enjoying the lore to look for deeper motives behind it.
I really don't think that it's the lore that did that. I think it's far more likely that people just stopped complaining and got tired screaming into the void. They don't care that Cawl wrote them into the lore, they don't care who Cawl is beyond another deus-ex character GW invented (and I don't want this to sound like a criticism of Cawl or Primaris, I love both). They don't love the lore or even accept it. They're just tired of complaining about change, and got over it.
I feel the same wound happen about women Astartes - a bit of screaming about change, and then just getting over it when they realise GW's legal teams won't send teams to your house to replace the heads on your models.
Riptides and such were generally more criticised for being overpowered in the rules to sell more models (hence the term “Triptide”) than they were considered a money grab. Most people just thought they were cool models.
But that doesn't change how in the lore, they had no reason to exist, until they did. The lore took a backseat to GW making a new meta-defining unit.
People who are inclined to complain about it will complain, I agree, but if they have no opposition, then that will become how people think of the change.
Opposition can come in forms that don't rely on the lore, such as "rule of cool".
You have suggested implementing it without any comment. How is adding comments about how Cawl dun it lying about your intentions, when you have suggested not saying anything anyway?
Because it feels (and it is only a feeling, I won't wish to ascribe motive) that the whole reason for inventing a reason for the change in the lore is purely to stop people thinking it was politically motivated.
I'll respond in kind to the summary points too, for your own ease if you don't want to go over all my stuff!
• It’s not “Justification in the lore” in the sense that the change has to be justified, it’s changing the lore so that the models we want to add continue to properly represent the space marine faction in the lore. It’s not that the lore is more important than the people, it’s that any change in 40k needs to be accounted for both in the models and the lore. If the lore said “marines have 2 heads” then marine models would need to have 2 heads as well. If the models had 2 heads, then the lore would need to say “marines have 2 heads”. If one says 1 head and the other says 2 heads then the models no longer represent marines. It’s the same thing with female representation – AM lore says there are women, and so the models need to have women as well. SM lore says there are no women, so the models have no women. You can’t change one without changing the other. If the lore doesn’t match the models, it will be an issue for a lot of people, regardless of what the content of the change is.
The thing is, I think we're talking about two different things. We both agree that the lore needs to explain the models, and the models need to be reflective of that lore. However, I disagree that *changes* need to be accounted for.
We're both pro-explaining women in the lore, but we're not agreed on what we want that explanation to be *of*. For me, I simply want to show that Space Marines with feminine pronouns exist, and this can be achieved by... well, having Space Marines with feminine pronouns. I don't want to show any change or modification, other than simply just showing that, self-evidently, women Space Marines exist, in the same way that non-white Space Marines exist. I believe that lore changes do not need to accounted for.
For you (if I'm not mistaken!), you want to show that there was a change, and show how that change came to be. You want to show that Space Marines with feminine pronouns exist, by explaining how they didn't exist before, and now do. You believe that lore changes need to be accounted for.
Fundamentally, our different comes from if we draw attention to the change or not.
• If there is no other reason forthcoming, then the people who only want a reason and haven’t already made up their minds (which I think would be the majority) will only get the answer “it’s political”, and as far as I can see this is the only thing in 40k which would have been added for purely political reasons, so it will stick out. The ones whose minds are made up cannot be helped, we should forget about them. I am concerned with what I believe to be the vast majority, which is the people who like the game as a combination of cool models and a huge, sprawling backstory, and want to see the two continue to marry up as smoothly as possible.
Again, I think the people who haven't made their minds up will also most likely be the group of people most likely to just get on with their day and just accept what happens, for whatever reason, in much the same way it happened with Primaris.
I believe that we have different ideas on what the "vast majority" of 40k players would do - you believe that this would alienate them without a lore reason, where as I believe that they will always ascribe political motivations to this, but ultimately will get on with their hobby in time when their world doesn't burn around them.
Again, perhaps I'm just jaded from Primaris, but I've seen plenty of times how, no matter what lore excuses GW give, people will still call their bluff and blame changes on political, economic, or legal reasons. And additionally, I still feel uncomfortable with the implication that the lore is more important to get "right" than making sure people are represented.
• If women constantly hear about how female marines were only added for political reasons, there’s nothing there to get them interested in their representation within the game, which is bad. If they instead hear cool stories about the benefits of more recruits and so on, they will feel like not only were women added to marines, but that they kicked ass when they did so and are continuing to do so. I feel like option 2 will make women feel more interested in 40k, and make people who aren’t inherently dingbats more welcoming to them.
I think that veers into the territory of tokenism and exceptionalism, which I kind of want to avoid. I'm not looking for "women offer a brand new tactical advantage and are new and different on the battlefield!" - I'm literally just after "women exist, and are just as capable as any other Space Marines". I think someone mentioned earlier about how perhaps women Space Marines might be more strategic or ranged specialists, but I really don't like that - it, again, promotes this idea of there being a difference and a distinction, which I'd rather there not be. Space Marines should be as blank a slate as possible, and that includes gender - it should be as free and unbound as whatever colour you chose to paint Your Dudes.
I totally agree with the idea of changing it without fuss or fanfare, but feel like a few pronouns in the fluff just isn’t going to do well enough at making people believe that this is a change that’s integrated into the very storyline of 40k, and not just a sticker slapped on the box saying “may contain women”.
Perhaps - but then, I feel that inventing a lore reason saying how women weren't a thing, but now totally are, only serves to paint women as exceptional and "different", no matter with how much good intention.
Again, making something feel "integrated" will only happen with time. I remember when Primaris, for all their lore reasons, still felt new and not quite landed and integrated. It was only with time and new material that they felt like everything else. I'd hope the same to happen to women Astartes.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/07/11 14:53:55
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.
As I've already said, considering how many different traditions Space Marines can draw from, why are we limiting the definition of "monk" to only the Christian version? Why does "monk" have to mean "all-male" when that is just as varied as monks being secluded, or ascetic, or peaceful.
If we're going to say that Space Marines are monkly, but don't exhibit all the monk traits, why is the monk trait they follow that they're all-male? - especially when many non-Christian monk orders are not all-male.
I thibk.you are misreading me. Youre projecting views that I'm not saying.
I'm not proposing space marines should be all male. I don't see why you are bringing that up.with relation to my point, when what I said had nothing to.do with it. You're doing that thing again where you are tarring everyone with the same brush. Please consider this. This tangent with gert was specific to a discussion relating to whether the monastic and warrior monk tropes are still relevant. I think are, and I think it's neither incompatible with female marines or with your notion that marines are a blank.slate faction.
I was the first one to mention tou you about non-christian monk traditions (I believe I mentioned buddhist and shaolin traditions). Back god knows how many pages ago you tried to confine it to just the Christian tradition. I said before that monastic traditions are quite varied and I've never confined my views of them to only the Christian interpretations.
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.
In Christian cultures, sure. But in Asian cultures? The same cannot be said.
And, as we've agreed, not all monk traditions are made equal. Many monks are more peaceful, whereas others are more militant. Others are secluded and isolated, and others are more integrated into their wider communities. I ask again why the thing we're choosing to single out is their gender exclusivity, especially when not all monk orders are all-male.
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.
Sure, but when the only common thread you're taking from "monk" is "they're all male" (which is reductive of Asian monk orders), I have to wonder why that's the thing we're keeping, and not other aspects, like their asceticism.
You say yourself that they don't need to follow every aspect of monastic culture - so why do they need to follow the gender part when the other bits are happily ignored?
.
Because I'm not sayimg that?
What I said above was that the tropes associated with the monastic tradition can support both the traditional male only view and the mixes gender approach that is the topic of this thread.
With respect, you're projecting things/views I'm not saying onto words said on a different topic. Christ Smudge, We've spoken on this thread and in private. You know where I stand. I'm for female marines. More so than at the start of the thread when I was decidedly neutral.
I really don't appreciate this from you. I feel like I'm being called out, and called out for things I didn't even say.
Again. Separate discussion. Unrelated to female marines.
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As I've already said, considering how many different traditions Space Marines can draw from, why are we limiting the definition of "monk" to only the Christian version? Why does "monk" have to mean "all-male" when that is just as varied as monks being secluded, or ascetic, or peaceful.
If we're going to say that Space Marines are monkly, but don't exhibit all the monk traits, why is the monk trait they follow that they're all-male? - especially when many non-Christian monk orders are not all-male.
I thibk.you are misreading me. Youre projecting views that I'm not saying.
I'm not proposing space marines should be all male. I don't see why you are bringing that up.with relation to my point, when what I said had nothing to.do with it. You're doing that thing again where you are tarring everyone with the same brush. Please consider this. This tangent with gert was specific to a discussion relating to whether the monastic and warrior monk tropes are still relevant. I think are, and I think it's neither incompatible with female marines or with your notion that marines are a blank.slate faction.
Yes, I know that you're pro-women Astartes. I'm not saying that *you*, as an individual, are.
But I am saying that the argument you're making, the whole "but they're warrior monks", can be used as an argument in support of all-male Marines, and as such, I want to express how I disagree with that being a justification of women Astartes. I know you're not making those arguments, but I want to put them to bed before someone does.
I was the first one to mention tou you about non-christian monk traditions (I believe I mentioned buddhist and shaolin traditions). Back god knows how many pages ago you tried to confine it to just the Christian tradition. I said before that monastic traditions are quite varied and I've never confined my views of them to only the Christian interpretations.
Actually, I believe that I was the one to mention how non-Christian monk traditions aren't exclusively all-male. I know you broadened the horizon on what it meant to be a monk, but by broadening that horizon, you only highlighted to me how utterly arbitrary the whole "no women" rule was, and how pointless it was to compare them to monks. As we both said, monastic traditions are incredibly varied - including their gender segregation - so why do we (the royal We, the hobby community We) let those varied traditions flourish, except when it involves women? It seems that the whole "monk" definition was quite useless, as, because of the massive variety in what actually made a monk, there wasn't really any single thing to pin down what made a Space Marine a monk. Yet, many people pointed to a specific subset of monks (all-male Christian monks) and claimed that this was the reason why Space Marines needed to be all male - yet overlooked how monastic traditions include a variety of genders.
Again, this isn't a *you* thing, this is a rebuttal of the argument of "warrior monks = male Astartes". I'm not going after you. I'm addressing that this argument could be made, and that I want to dismantle it before it can be made.
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.
In Christian cultures, sure. But in Asian cultures? The same cannot be said.
And, as we've agreed, not all monk traditions are made equal. Many monks are more peaceful, whereas others are more militant. Others are secluded and isolated, and others are more integrated into their wider communities. I ask again why the thing we're choosing to single out is their gender exclusivity, especially when not all monk orders are all-male.
I'm not.
I know that you're not. My apologies if that's the tone, but I am addressing the argument that many many other have used in this thread about how "Space Marines are warrior monks, so must be all-male".
Either: Space Marines must follow from the gendered rules of stereotypical monks, but many Chapters don't exhibit those stereotypes; or Space Marines draw from a wide range of monastic traditions, which doesn't prevent the existence of women Astartes.
I'm just trying to make that point crystal clear to anyone who want to use "warrior monk = all male" as an argument.
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.
Sure, but when the only common thread you're taking from "monk" is "they're all male" (which is reductive of Asian monk orders), I have to wonder why that's the thing we're keeping, and not other aspects, like their asceticism.
You say yourself that they don't need to follow every aspect of monastic culture - so why do they need to follow the gender part when the other bits are happily ignored? .
Because I'm not sayimg that?
What I said above was that the tropes associated with the monastic tradition can support both the traditional male only view and the mixes gender approach that is the topic of this thread.
And I'm agreeing with that - I'm shooting down the "warrior monk = all male" view, not you in particular.
With respect, you're projecting things/views I'm not saying onto words said on a different topic. Christ Smudge, We've spoken on this thread and in private. You know where I stand. I'm for female marines. More so than at the start of the thread when I was decidedly neutral.
I really don't appreciate this from you. I feel like I'm being called out, and called out for things I didn't even say.
Again. Separate discussion. Unrelated to female marines.
You're reading into this as a argument against you. It's not. It is an argument against the position of "warrior monks = all male", which I used your comment as a springboard into that discussion. It it not aimed at you - I know your stance on the matter. I thought our correspondence over private messages had made that position clear. Evidently not, and for that, I apologise, but this is not aimed at you. I am not putting words into your mouth, I am addressing comments that continue to be held by others, using your bringing up of monastic traditions as my way of doing that, and highlighting how arbitrary the exclusion of women still is.
It's not aimed at you. My apologies if I didn't make that clear.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/07/10 17:25:15
I know you're not making those arguments, but I want to put them to bed before someone does.
At my expense!
You want to make a point, then make the point. Don't take me out at the same time, especially when you are absolutely misusing the content of my posts.
Again, this isn't a *you* thing, this is a rebuttal of the argument of "warrior monks = male Astartes". I'm not going after you. I'm addressing that this argument could be made, and that I want to dismantle it before it can be made.
For someone 'not going after me', you do a damn good job of taking me out in your crossfire Smudge.
There was no context to your posts. No springboard. No caveats. No explanations. Just responses directly to what I said, and completely misrepresenting what I was saying.
You wrote a novel in responding to some bloke. You can damn well afford a few words when youre quoting me as a springboard to discussing this to explain what you're doing.and how it's 'not personal or 'not directed at me'.
I know that you're not. My apologies if that's the tone, but I am addressing the argument that many many other have used in this thread about how "Space Marines are warrior monks, so must be all-male".
And I'm agreeing with that - I'm shooting down the "warrior monk = all male" view, not you in particular.
Youre 'addressing the argument' by directly addressing me in responses to my posts taken out of context. With no context that your expanding the discussion or want to touch on something else.
Firstly he tone was completely unessessary. How you address people, and how you use their words matters. Whether you want to.or not , you're setting me up as the villain in this piece and without any explanation, burning me alongside to make a point.
You're reading into this as a argument against you. It's not. It is an argument against the position of "warrior monks = all male", which I used your comment as a springboard into that discussion. It it not aimed at you - I know your stance on the matter. I thought our correspondence over private messages had made that position clear. Evidently not, and for that, I apologise, but this is not aimed at you. I am not putting words into your mouth, I am addressing comments that continue to be held by others, using your bringing up of monastic traditions as my way of doing that, and highlighting how arbitrary the exclusion of women still is.
It's not aimed at you. My apologies if I didn't make that clear.
And I thought our correspondence would have entitled me to a bit more respect from you than for my posts to be 'used' so poorly in such a public manner.
and you didn't make it clear. That's the whole point. And you absolutely burned me in thr process! That's not OK man.
And I'm actually more than a little bit annoyed and upset that yet again this is happening.
For something 'not aimed at me', you've done a very poor job Smudge. And yes, whether it was your intention or not, or whether you just don't care, you've absolutely put words I've never said into my mouth and projected opinions onto my posts that I do not hold.
Do better than apologies Smudge. Anything else, let's take it to pm's.
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2021/07/10 18:02:52
Similarly, I'm not going to let a post that can, as you well know, be so easily misrepresented by other people as support of excluding women go unchallenged, no matter who makes it.
I've shot down arguments by Fezzik and other people if they've erred close to giving ammunition to why women Astartes shouldn't be made. This isn't about sides, it's not about the people making these comments - it's simply about the arguments being made, and making sure that they're unpicked fully. I have no intention to burn anyone, and again, I'm happy saying very publicly that you did not make those comments. However, I want to make it very clear that those comments absolutely have been made in this thread, and those needed to be re-iterated.
I apologise that I used you as a vector for that, but likewise, by not addressing those issues that I raised with the monk argument, your comments could very easily have been used as endorsement and support in favour of excluding women Astartes, regardless of your own noted support of women Astartes. I wanted to nip that in the bud - not *your* comments, but the ones that I've seen raised again, and again, and again.
Regardless, I should have explained that all better, and do better, you are correct. I hold my hands up to that.
Eldar- 4436 pts
